A controversial decision taken on Sabarimala temple

In the last days, the Supreme Court has ordered the permission of women to enter the Sabarimala temple in Kerala for 10 to 50 years of age. It is important to note that entry of women of this age group in this temple is restricted. This restriction has some of its religious reasons. The Supreme Court has given its verdict considering it as a matter of discrimination against women.

The hearing of this case was on the back of five judges, in which there were four men and one woman judge. The main issue of the matter was that

(A) The process of separation of women from the temple, does the violation of the provision to be treated equally before the law under Article 14? In addition, does Article 15 and 17 violate the provisions of non-discrimination and the provisions of declaration of untouchability?

(B) Is this the 'mandatory religious practice' to keep women separate, because of religious freedom of Article 25?

(C) Is Swami Aiyappa a different religious sect? So, have they given special exemption under Article 26?

( D) According to rule 3 (B) Hindu Religious Place in Kerala, it is unconstitutional to impose this type of restriction on women of 10-50 years?

The majority of the judges responded in 'yes' to the first question and 'no' for the second and third questions. Rule 3 (B) was told by the four male judges to open the door of the temple to the women of all ages, while the woman judge said the exact opposite.

Judge's arguments: how accurate, how wrong?

Judge Chandrachud referred to paragraph 17 while linking the practice of Sabarimala to the touch.

Judge Indu Malhotra said that restrictions on the entry of women of a particular age group can not be kept in the purview of Article 17. Inspired by the touch of untouchability, the temple-entry prohibition of Dalits should not be compared to the restrictions imposed on women. The issue of temple entry comes under the purview of social ethics. Judge Malhotra rejected this because of 'discrimination' while describing it as a matter of religious diversity.

Both the judges agreed on the logic that matters of mandatory practices in religion should not be brought to court decisions. The talk of deadly practices like sati is different. Judge Malhotra also argued that in relation to the inevitability of practices, religious communities can decide. He presented a different view of the case and said that in the case of fundamental rights described in Article 32, an appeal can be made in the Supreme Court, when a petitioner has personally been deprived of the right to worship in the temple. No such case has been reported with the petitioner in Sabarimala Temple case, but the true devotees of Swami Ayyappa have launched a campaign called "Ready To Wait" which aims to support the temporary ban on entry into the temple.

Conclusion

Those who oppose progress on the name of religion must curb constitutional morality. But if the hooks of the shoots were more tightly laid, then they could also be destroyers.

If the Supreme Court had to take up any matter on matters of constitutional ethics, equality and gender justice, then he had to take any other matter separately from Sabarimala. To illustrate a very broad topic, exceptions like Sabarimala should not have been made an issue.

Nonetheless, social and religious protest of the Supreme Court's decision is continuously being done. Petitions have also been filed against it, which is to be heard in November. It can be expected that any prudent, universal, constitutional decision can be taken in the forthcoming hearing.

R. Published in 'The Times of India' Based on Jagannathan's article October 5, 2018