Preamble
Would like to quote PR professional, Smitha Menon, who is against young women visiting Sabarimala,
"The five-judge bench in Sep '18, by a majority ruling said the following:-
(a) The temple and its devotees cannot claim the status and protection of a denomination as they
are majority Hindus.
(b) The restriction on women aged 10 to 50 to enter and offer prayers at the temple was held to
be not an essential practice.
(c) Much was also spoken about untouchability and cheating women of their right to worship".
She further continues, "Sabarimala is a pilgrim centre and has several unique practices. It is these
practices that lead a devotee to the deity (Lord Ayyappa). We believe that Lord Ayyappa has
suggested a school of renunciation and prescribed a path to self-realisation. A devotee rejects the
elements of 'grihasthasrama' for 41 days. An age restriction is prescribed for women from
adolescence till before the age of 'vanaprastha' so that rejection of family life for 41 days is
possible".
The Verdict
In a 3-2 majority verdict, the Supreme Court referred the case to larger seven-judge bench the pleas
seeking review of its historic 2018 judgement allowing women and girls of all ages to enter Kerala's Sabarimala temple. Three other contentious issues of alleged discrimination against Muslim and
Parsi women, listed below will also be considered:-
(a) Entry of Muslim women in a durgah/mosque.
(b) Entry to fire temple for Parsi women married to a non-Parsi and
(c) Genital mutilation in Dawood Bohra community, a Shia Muslim sect.
(However, the Dawoodi Bohra Muslim Women's Association for Religious Freedom -
DBWRF, a representative association of 72,000 Dawoodi Bohra women had argued that
'khafz' or female circumcision as practised by them wasn't female genital mutilation).
The scope of the review pleas was limited to the entry of menstruating women into the shrine. In other words, the ambit was between Religious matters vs Rule of law.
The Court Sets Out Seven Questions Of Law
1. Interplay between freedom of religion under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
2. What is the sweep of expression 'public order, morality and health' occurring in Article 25(1)
of the Constitution?
3. Need to delineate the expression 'constitutional morality'.
4. Extent to which courts can enquire into particular religious practices.
5. Meaning of sections of Hindus under Article 25.
6. Whether 'essential religious practices' of denomination or a section thereof are protected under
Article 26.
7. Permissible extent of judicial recognition to PILs in matters calling into question religious
practices of a denomination or a section thereof at the instance of persons who do not belong to
such religious denomination.
And an additional point concerning Sabarimala alone, "Whether the statutes laid down in the Kerala Act of 1965, regarding the entry of people into public places of worship covers Sabarimala also?"
Tailpiece.
Has the Kerala Government jumped the gun by saying that it shall not facilitate entry of women into Sabarimala, this time, because the court has made it clear, that the compliance of its orders is not optional!
Would like to quote PR professional, Smitha Menon, who is against young women visiting Sabarimala,
"The five-judge bench in Sep '18, by a majority ruling said the following:-
(a) The temple and its devotees cannot claim the status and protection of a denomination as they
are majority Hindus.
(b) The restriction on women aged 10 to 50 to enter and offer prayers at the temple was held to
be not an essential practice.
(c) Much was also spoken about untouchability and cheating women of their right to worship".
She further continues, "Sabarimala is a pilgrim centre and has several unique practices. It is these
practices that lead a devotee to the deity (Lord Ayyappa). We believe that Lord Ayyappa has
suggested a school of renunciation and prescribed a path to self-realisation. A devotee rejects the
elements of 'grihasthasrama' for 41 days. An age restriction is prescribed for women from
adolescence till before the age of 'vanaprastha' so that rejection of family life for 41 days is
possible".
The Verdict
In a 3-2 majority verdict, the Supreme Court referred the case to larger seven-judge bench the pleas
seeking review of its historic 2018 judgement allowing women and girls of all ages to enter Kerala's Sabarimala temple. Three other contentious issues of alleged discrimination against Muslim and
Parsi women, listed below will also be considered:-
(a) Entry of Muslim women in a durgah/mosque.
(b) Entry to fire temple for Parsi women married to a non-Parsi and
(c) Genital mutilation in Dawood Bohra community, a Shia Muslim sect.
(However, the Dawoodi Bohra Muslim Women's Association for Religious Freedom -
DBWRF, a representative association of 72,000 Dawoodi Bohra women had argued that
'khafz' or female circumcision as practised by them wasn't female genital mutilation).
The scope of the review pleas was limited to the entry of menstruating women into the shrine. In other words, the ambit was between Religious matters vs Rule of law.
The Court Sets Out Seven Questions Of Law
1. Interplay between freedom of religion under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
2. What is the sweep of expression 'public order, morality and health' occurring in Article 25(1)
of the Constitution?
3. Need to delineate the expression 'constitutional morality'.
4. Extent to which courts can enquire into particular religious practices.
5. Meaning of sections of Hindus under Article 25.
6. Whether 'essential religious practices' of denomination or a section thereof are protected under
Article 26.
7. Permissible extent of judicial recognition to PILs in matters calling into question religious
practices of a denomination or a section thereof at the instance of persons who do not belong to
such religious denomination.
And an additional point concerning Sabarimala alone, "Whether the statutes laid down in the Kerala Act of 1965, regarding the entry of people into public places of worship covers Sabarimala also?"
Tailpiece.
Has the Kerala Government jumped the gun by saying that it shall not facilitate entry of women into Sabarimala, this time, because the court has made it clear, that the compliance of its orders is not optional!
No comments:
Post a Comment