(by Aaron Nedumparambill)

It’s a longstanding belief of a section of the public in Kerala that a woman shouldn’t be allowed to visit the Sabarimala temple because of the ‘Naishtika Brahmachari’ status of the presiding deity or ‘prathishta’. This ‘brahmachari’ status of the deity needs to be protected and because of this women of reproductive age are not allowed to undertake the pilgrimage. The belief was legally sanctioned by the Devaswom Board and Kerala State Government under the 1965 Hindu Temple Act and approved and vigorously implemented since 1991 after a verdict by a division bench of Kerala High Court.

The recent Supreme Court verdict allowing women of ages to enter the Sabarimala temple has triggered a significant response by sections of the Hindu community, with many protesters, including women, taking to the streets. Here, I attempt to answer some questions pertaining to the SC verdict based on my reading of the judgement.

Why didn’t Supreme Court protect the core belief of Sabarimala Ayyappa Devotees?

The court found that the practise of exclusion of women between the ages of 10 and 50 as a non-core part of the faith. The Devaswom Board in 1991 had admitted to HC that young female devotees were allowed into the temple for the ‘Rice Feeding Ceremony’. If Sabarimala Ayyappa Devotees constituted a separate denomination or cult, the court observed, then their religious practises would have been protected from full constitutional morality. To determine if the Ayyappa Devotees were a separate denomination the court had these basic requirements:

-Common Faith

-Common Organisation

-Distinct Name

The Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra, with reference to previous judgements that held Sabarimala Ayyappan Devotees don’t constitute a separate religious denomination (page 61 of the judgement by CJI), was of the view that the devotees of Ayyappans were by all practical and religious purposes Hindus and their belief system the same as Hindus. Observance of certain customs from time to time didn’t make them a separate religious denomination. The petitioners also failed to argue using the other points that is common organisation and distinct name, both of which were found lacking in this case.

Isn’t it the right of the deity at Sabarimala to not be disturbed by the presence of young women?

The deity at Sabarimala is considered to be in a ‘Perpetual Minor’ state by the law, but it doesn’t enjoy Fundamental Rights like humans do. The Indian law doesn’t at any point value the rights of a deity over the rights of a human being.

The Sabarimala temple isn’t a private property, thus the temple is bound to follow the constitutional law of the land. The notion that the Deity at Sabarimala is disturbed by the presence of a woman is also not considered as a scientific fact. The respondent’s argument on this point in my view lacked the necessary punch to be accepted. There wasn’t any scriptural support for the exclusionary practise that could be presented in the court. Customs and beliefs without the scriptural backing are deemed man made and that makes them vulnerable to change.

On the individuality of temples

The view that the verdict is a blow to the individuality of the temples is wrong and unfair. Temples in India are varied; each has its own history, some temples also have their own unique worship system. But, the fact is that all public temples in Kerala are governed by the Kerala Hindu Places of Worship Act.

Every Temple coming under this act has its right to individuality and uniqueness provided the terms of this act are violated. With the Supreme Court Verdict striking down Rule 3b, the practice of exclusion becomes wrong and unconstitutional. There are private temples not governed by this Act that practise exclusion based on birth/gender, for example the Manarshala Temple in Kerala into which Dalits are not allowed to.

Menstruation

There are some people who peddle the narrative of menstruation not being a factor in this case. It was stated by multiple respondents in Supreme Court that women were unable to undertake the strict penance of ‘vratham’ for 41 days. A respondent argued it was not physiologically feasible for women to complete the 41 days of penances while another respondent made a direct reference to menstruation as the reason for the perceived inability to complete the 41-day ‘vratham’ that devotees to Sabarimala by tradition have to undertake before entering the temple. There is no way that the Supreme Court of India would have validated this belief.

Story continues