Women believe in Sabarimala deity: CJI

Court counters temple board’s views

July 20, 2018 12:44 am | Updated 12:44 am IST - NEW DELHI

The Sabarimala temple is a public place of worship, the Supreme Court noted.

The Sabarimala temple is a public place of worship, the Supreme Court noted.

Women want to visit Sabarimala because they believe in the deity, Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra said on Thursday, countering the Travancore Devaswom Board’s strong opposition to removing the centuries-old prohibition on women in menarche from entering the famous temple in Kerala.

Senior advocate A.M. Singhvi, for the Board, said the nature of the deity in Sabarimala is that of ‘Naishtika Brahmachari’ (celibate), and should not be disturb- ed. A 1991 Kerala High Court judgment supported the restriction, as it had been in place since time immemorial and not discriminatory to the Constitution. There are other Ayyappa temples, and women are free to offer prayers there unlike Sabarimala. Besides, he said, temples generally prohibit menstruating women.

To this, Chief Justice Misra observed that there were many Jagannath temples in the country, yet devotees throng the one in Puri.

The exchange came on the third day of hearing, by a Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice Misra, of petitions challenging the prohibition on women aged 10 to 50 from entering Sabarimala. The petitioners claim that the prohibition amounts to discrimination and another abolished social evil, untouchability.

‘Caste, creed no bar’

Mr. Singhvi submitted that Sabarimala does not practise exclusion. People from all walks of life and from every creed, caste and religion enter the temple. He submitted that it was also physiologically impossible for women to observe the 41-day penance before the pilgrimage. The restriction finds its source in the legend that the deity – Swami Ayyappa – is a Naishtika Brahmachari, he said.

The Kerala government stood firm in its support for allowing women entry into the temple. Senior advocate Jaideep Gupta submitted that such customs come within the ambit of Article 13 and should not violate any fundamental rights.

Amicus curiae Raju Ramachandran submitted that Article 17 (abolition of untouchability) extends to exclusions on the basis of bodily “impurity.” At one point, Justice Indu Malhotra, on the Bench, said there is a temple in Kerala where men are not allowed.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.