Centre backs Sabarimala women entry curbs, citing faith over equality

The Indian government, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, has publicly backed the restrictions on the entry of women of menstruating age into the Sabarimala temple in Kerala. Appearing before a nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, Mehta argued that the landmark 2018 verdict, which lifted the ban, was premised on an erroneous assumption that men were superior to women. The Centre's stance emphasizes that religious practices should not be solely viewed through a gender lens and that certain traditions are rooted in faith rather than discrimination. The ongoing Supreme Court hearings are part of a broader examination of petitions seeking a review of the 2018 judgment. In that pivotal decision, a 4:1 majority of a five-judge bench had ruled that the ban on women aged 10 to 50 was unconstitutional, violating the right to equality and freedom of religion. This verdict had ignited widespread protests across Kerala. The subsequent reference to a larger nine-judge bench in 2019 broadened the scope to include issues of gender discrimination in places of worship across various religions in India, aiming to lay down constitutional principles for such matters. Solicitor General Mehta presented several arguments to the bench, highlighting the diversity of religious customs in India and citing the example of the Kottankulangara Sree Devi Temple in Kerala, where men adopt female attire during a festival. He stated that the Sabarimala practice is rooted in the specific faith associated with the deity, Lord Ayyappa, who is considered a 'Naishtika Brahmachari' (an eternal celibate). The Centre contended that such traditions are unique ('sui generis') and should not be subjected to judicial review, emphasizing that matters of religious faith and denominational autonomy lie beyond the court's jurisdiction. Mehta also questioned the doctrine of 'constitutional morality,' suggesting it is a vague political concept not explicitly defined in the Constitution. He argued that if a religious practice is unscientific, the legislature, not the judiciary, should be the one to enact remedial measures. The Centre's position is that not all constitutional questions need to be viewed through a gender lens, pushing back against the idea that every issue must be framed in terms of gender equality. Justice B.V. Nagarathna, a member of the nine-judge bench, raised pertinent questions, remarking that a woman cannot be treated as 'untouchable' for three days a month and then not on the fourth. This comment came in response to Mehta's assertion that the 2018 judgment's observation equating the ban with 'untouchability' was objectionable. Mehta clarified that the restriction at Sabarimala was based on a specific age group and not menstruation, and that Ayyappa temples elsewhere do not have such restrictions. The Supreme Court is examining the interplay between individual rights, particularly the right to equality and freedom of religion under Articles 14 and 25 of the Constitution, and the autonomy of religious denominations. The case is significant not only for the Sabarimala temple but also for potentially setting precedents for similar issues concerning women's entry into mosques, Parsi fire temples, and other places of worship in India. The hearings are ongoing, with the court expected to provide a landmark judgment on the complex balance between religious freedom and gender equality in the country.

Frequently Asked Questions

Read Full Story on Quick Digest