Breaking News

Sabarimala Temple Issue – Restriction on Entry of Women in Temple of Lord Ayyappa

Sabarimala Temple Issue – Restriction on Entry of Women in Temple of Lord Ayyappa

This article talks about a famous temple of Lord Ayyappa called Sabarimala temple. It discusses history of Sabarimala temple, how the religious beliefs, practices and restrictions imposed by temple management turned in to legal and constitutional issues. It also mentions the judgment of Supreme Court, discusses the arguments in favour and against the restrictions related to women entry in temple.

Introduction

Sabarimala Temple of Lord Ayyappa

History of Sabarimala Temple

What is the Issue?

Legal Course of Sabarimala Temple Issue

Verdict of Supreme Court

Arguments against Restriction 

Arguments in Favour of Restriction

Challenges to Implement Supreme Court Judgment

Impact of Supreme Court Verdict

What Next?

Conclusion


Introduction

India is a multi religious country. Every religion is given equal respect. The constitution of India grants religious rights to all citizens. Religious leaders have right to manage religious practices relevant to their own religion. There are several religious matters which need to be resolved. After verdict on Ayodhya dispute, the issue of Sabarimala temple has attracted attention of people across the country.  




Sabarimala Temple

Sabarimala temple is a Hindu temple located on top of Sabarimala hill on Western Ghats in state of Kerala on the bank of river Pamba. It is surrounded by eighteen hills. It is located 175 km away from Thiruvananthpuram, capital of Kerala. Every year, lakhs of devotees visit the Sabarimala temple. The temple is devoted to Lord Ayyappa. The temple is managed by Travancore Devaswom Board. The board has 96 acre land. There are 18 indicative steps to reach the temple. First five steps are related to human sense; next eight steps are related to human emotions, next three indicate human qualities and next two refer to knowledge and ignorance.  


Sabaraimala-temple-of-Lord-Ayyappa

History of Sabarimala Temple

Sabarimala temple devoted to Lord Ayyappa was built by King Rajshekhar of Pandalam dynasty in 12th century. Actually, he built it for a prince of Pandalam dynasty itself. The prince “Manikandan” left his kingdom, travelled to Sabarimala hills, meditated, acquired cosmic form and disappeared there. It is believed that the prince was reincarnation of Lord Ayyappa. According to mythological stories, Lord Ayyappa was son of Lord Shiva and feminine form of Lord Vishnu who appeared as Mohini during Samudra Manthan. Lord Ayyappa is also known as “Harihar Putra” due to being born out of Vishnu.

Lord Ayyappa is believed to be a celibate (Naishtika Brahmachari). A Naishtika Brahmachari has to reside with guru. He has to serve his guru, after whom Gurumata has to be served. Subsequently, he has to serve their children and then followed by Agni. He emancipated a female demon known as Maalikapurathamma by defeating her in a battle. She expressed her with to marry with Lord Ayyappa but he rejected her request. He said that if any year no devotee will come to visit him, he will marry her. Devotees believe that Maalikapurathamma is still waiting for Lord Ayyappa.

What is the Issue?

Sabarimala temple management has imposed restrictions on temple entry of women belonging to age group from 10 to 50 years. This religious restriction is more than 800 years old. The reason cited by religious leaders and temple managers is celibacy of Lord Ayyappa. He is a Naishtika Brahmachari and is not supposed to come in contact of women of reproductive age group. The issue is raised by supporters of women devotees of this particular age group. They demand to be treated equally and should be allowed to enter temple to visit and worship Lord Ayyappa.

Legal Course of Sabarimala Temple Issue

In 1991, Kerala high court upheld the restriction imposed on women. In 2006, Kerala HC itself reversed its own decision. It rejected the Sabarimala temple entry restriction on the grounds of sexual discrimination against rights of Hindu women. The court said that all devotees have equal right to worship. Women have equal participation in the society. The male dominance has to be overcome. The temple entry restriction on women is a clear cut violation of fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution in article 14 (right to equality), article 15 (right of non discrimination), article 25 (individual religious rights) and article 26 (religious rights of a group) under Part III. Several petitions were filed.

Verdict of Supreme Court

In the same year of 2006, petition filed by Indian Young Lawyers Association reached to Honourable Supreme Court. The petition had two prayers. One was related to Sabarimala temple issue and the other was a broader one which encompasses the religious rights of women of other religions also.The Supreme Court asked Travancore Devaswom Board the reason for not giving permission to women devotees for temple entry. In 2017, case was shifted from 3 judge’s bench to 5 judge’s constitutional bench. On 28th September 2018, Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Deepak Misra declared this practice as unconstitutional and discriminatory by the majority of 4 + 1. The bench included five judges namely Justice Deepak Misra, Justice D Y Chandrachud, Justice Indu Malhotra, Justice R F Nariman and Justice A M Khanwilkar. Justice Indu Malhotra had a view different from other judges. She said that court should not interfere in deep religious issues so that state remains secular. If this is related to a social issue like sati pratha then court must intervene. She also said even if one is a Hindu but does not have any faith then how can he / she file a PIL due to lack of locus standi.

Supreme Court stroked down rule 3(b) of Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship act, 1965 which hinders the entry of women in place of public worship.

Arguments against Restriction

As per the law of land, India is a secular state. It grants fundamental rights to every Indian citizen which include equality, non discrimination and religious rights also. Constitution is supreme in India. The fundamental rights guaranteed by constitution are required to be upheld. In order to defend them, it is responsibility of judiciary to act against such practices which snatch the fundamental rights of citizens.  

Arguments in Favour of Restriction

The hardliner devotees argue that Sabarimala temple is a masculine temple. The tradition of worship is tantric pooja which gets spoiled due to bodily fluids like semen, blood etc. Even an injured person who is bleeding is not allowed to enter. Thus, blood oozing out from both man and woman is responsible for spoiling worship. If people with such oozing body fluids are allowed to enter in the temple, how does sanctity of temple is compensated?

Celibacy of Lord Ayyappa is another argument put forwarded by devotees.

Moreover, the difficult journey to the Sabarimala temple located in difficult terrain and dense forests might be a strong reason to prevent women to visit it.                              

Challenges to Implement Supreme Court Judgment

The implementation of the orders of court is challenging for state government in terms of maintaining law and order in the state and in terms of infrastructure development. Experts suggest that Sabarimala hills and surrounding area is prone to landslides. The infrastructural development in the region can invite undesirable natural disasters in the area.

Impact of Supreme Court Verdict

Even after order of Supreme Court, women devotees could not find a way to enter the Sabarimala temple. Violence erupted in Kerala to hinder women entry in Sabarimala temple. Devotees and journalists were attacked also. Protestors called for “Kerala Band”. Many political parties also supported to band. Kerala government said that it is bound to follow order of Supreme Court.

What Next?

There are about 65 petitions regarding this issue of Sabarimala temple including 56 review petitions, 4 new petitions and 5 transfer petitions. Supreme Court 5 judge’s bench transferred the case to larger bench of 7 judges. Supreme Court identified seven questions which are required to be resolved by seven judge’s bench. These questions are related to determine the interference of judiciary in religious matter and the extent of such interference. Other questions are about the applicability of rules of Hindu Places of Public Worship on Sabarimala temple


Conclusion

Sabarimala temple issue is not only restricted to itself. It encompasses similar issues of other religions like mosque entry issue of Muslim women, Khatna issue of Daodi Bohra community of Muslims, and that of entry of Parsi women in Agyari etc. All such issues are waiting for their resolution. If decision comes similar to previous verdict, to facilitate the access of devotees would require expansion of infrastructure.

See Other Posts: Sant Ravidas Temple Issue, Ayodhya Dispute

No comments