Sabarimala Temple Entry Issue
Amidst the 18 hills, Ayyappan’s temple called Sabarimala is located in the Periyar Tiger Reserve, Kerala. It is one of the most important pilgrimage site for Hindus and as per records the second largest seasonal pilgrimage in the world to Mecca in Saudi Arabia. The government records have data of about 3.5 crore visitors in the year 2016-17. The revenue collected from the temple was a staggering Rs 243.69 crore as per the government records.
This pilgrimage is not easy and requires devotees to follow a ‘Vratham’ for a period of 41 days prior to the pilgrimage. The 41 days are marked by wearing a special chain called mala which consists of Tulasi or Rudraksha. In the course of 41 days of Vratham, the devote is supposed to have a lacto-vegetarian diet, abstain from marriage and sexual relations, not consume alcohol in any form, and allow the growth of hair and nails without cutting them. Devotees should serve the society and others as much as possible and realize that God is everywhere.
Background of controversy
In the past, the temple saw few women pilgrims due to the hardships of pilgrimage and route of the temple. Usually, women above the age of 50 used to visit the temple to conduct the first feeding ceremony of their children which consisted of rice. The temple was visited by poor and rich alike in the past until 1991.
A bench of judge comprising of Justice K Paripoornan and Justice K Balanarayana Marar of the Kerala High Court in 1991 gave out a ruling against the Travancore Devaswom Board under which it banned the entry of women in the age group of 10-50 claiming that such a practice of not allowing women of that age group was very much prevalent in the past and that it was according to the traditional practices. The Kerala High Court directed the Government of Kerala to use all the measures required to implement the ruling of the High Court. This is where the roots of the entire controversy lie.
Arguments Proposed in favour of the ban by Religious Authorities
The religious bodies defending this ban have put forth Article 26 of the Indian Constitution which has given power to every religious denomination to manage their religious affairs as a fundamental right. As per their argument, interference by the state in matters pertaining to the temple will violate their right and also assert faith of people cannot be subjected to crude logic. Many supporters also draw an analogy between Societies which only allow men, restaurants which serve a certain kind of food only and claim that such bodies were formed for a specific purpose and members hence it cannot be claimed that they are being unfair to women by not letting them in.
Arguments against the ban
Critics and women’s rights activist are fighting against this as they believe that the practice of not allowing women of 10-50 age group in the temple is discriminatory and is actually infringing on the rights of women to profess and practice their religion freely. The controversy regained momentum in 2006 when a famous female actor of Kerala claimed to have entered the sanctum room and touched the feet of Lord’s idol. Since then with the onset of activism, social media the fight against this ban has gathered a lot of momentum.
Developments in the recent past
In 2007, the states’ then government led by Left Democratic Front (LDF) favoured the entry of all age groups of women to the temple and stood against the ban but this was opposed by the United Democratic Front (UDF) government which won the elections in the next tenure. The LDF government came back to power in 2016 and again stood by its past stand of supporting the entry of women in the shrine.
Recently, in January 2016 the Supreme Court of India raised questions on the validity and need of this ban after a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) claiming that such a ban cannot be passed under the Constitution of India and is unconstitutional. One year later in February 2017, the SC referred this issue to a five-membered constitutional bench to work on the PIL. This PIL was filled by the Indian Young Lawyers Association against the ruling of Kerala High Court in 1991.
A constitutional bench is a name which is used to refer to the benches of SC consisting of at least 5 judges. Usually, such benches are formed to decide any case which involves a substantial question of law and its interpretation as stated in the Constitution of India.
Recently on 27th October 2017, a fresh plea was filled which demanded that the bench hearing the Sabarimala Temple case should consist of 50% women judges.
Exam Topics Suggestion
Mains: This is one of the major topics among others related to Gender justice in India and pertains to Indian Society in Paper-1 and social justice in paper-2.
