THE SABARIMALA VERDICT

Certainly, the greatest impetus for the present-day Human Rights revolution was the
holocaust, when an estimated 6 million Jews were pitilessly and systematically killed during
World War II. There was undeniable proof that citizenship might offer absolutely no protection
against a government that sought to make war on a particular group of people belonging to a
particular religion within a given society. What's curious is the fact that such absoluteness could
always be seen as favoritism especially when a problem concerning a particular religion is
looked upon as a national issue whereas similar incidents with the minorities are ignored. The
problem is not about the judgment it's about the veil through which people see it. It's time to
realize that the above judgment isn't about a Hindu issue, it's about something that concerns not
just India but every country on the face of the earth.

Gender inequality exists among the most prevalent forms of social inequality evident all
over the world, with different effects everywhere. These differences are primarily due to cultural
legacies, historical development, geographic location, and last but not least religious norms that
predominate in the society. Religion 1plays a vital role in the cultural life of different spaces; it’s
deeply rooted in peoples’ experiences and has a direct impact on the socioeconomic and political
progress of a country. The role of religion becomes even more vital when the status of women is
an outcome of the interpretations of the religious texts and the cultural and institutional set-up of
religious communities. I've already mentioned that a mob views this verdict through a veil and
the reason for stating the significance of gender equality and religion before I started with The
Sabrimala Case was to make clear my "post-Christian" 2standpoint.

The Sabarimala Issue

1
Department of Social Geography and Regional Development, Faculty of Science, Charles University in Prague

2
Here: A predominantly secular perspective
The Supreme Court of India has repeatedly struck down discriminating religious practices, the
recent one being the Triple Talaq3. The Sabrimala Entry row to a five-member constitution bench
is in itself a radical judicial move. Preventing the entry of women in the Sabrimala along the
lines of an irrational and obsolete notion of "purity" clearly offends the equality clause in the
constitution. It's a downright patriarchal and partisan approach which under normal
circumstances should not be entertained by any rational human being considering the right to
worship applicable to every citizen. The only reason it was entertained was due to the religious
legacy of sacred lord Ayyapa temple at Sabrimala. The entry prohibition takes away the women's
Right against discrimination guaranteed under article 15(1) of the constitution, it curtails her
religious freedom assured by 25(1). Such prohibition of women's entry into the shrine solely
based on womanhood and the biological features associated with womanhood is derogatory to
women, which article 51A(e) aims to renounce. The classification based on age is, in essence, is
an act of discrimination based on sex. Although it seemed like a legal challenge to the exclusion
of women in the age 10-50 age group from the Sabrimala temple. It represented a conflict
between the group rights of the temple authorities in enforcing the presiding deity's strict celibate
status and the individual rights of women to offer worship there.

According to an editorial analysis, A group of five lawyers had challenged rule 3(b) of the
Kerala Hindu Places of public worship 4 which authorizes restrictions on women of the
menstruating age. Senior Advocate Indira Jaising who represented the petitioners said that the
above-mentioned restrictions went against the fundamental articles 14, 15, and 17 of the Indian
constitution. She argued that the custom is discriminatory in nature and stigmatized women and
that women should be allowed to pray at the place of their choice. Although the Kerala
government's stance was pretty clear the majority of the population did not support it. Kerala-n
government through Jaideep Gupta made it comprehensible that the entry of women of all ages
was supported by them.

3
Shayara Bano v. Union of India, 2017

4
Authorization of Entry Rule of 1965
ABOUT THE VERDICT

The 5 judge bench was headed by former chief justice Dipak Misra along with Justices
AM Khanwilkar, RF Nariman, and Indu Malhotra. The 4:1 verdict with Justice Indu Malhotra
giving a dissenting vote declared that The Supreme Court from this 2018 allowed women of all
ages in the Ayyapa temple at Sabrimala in Kerala.

The possible reasons for the above verdict could be the following. The Indian Constitution
protects religious freedoms in two ways. It protects an individual's right to confess or profess,
practice, and propagate a religion5and it also assures similar protection to every religious
denomination to manage its affairs. The argument that the practice is justified just because
women of menstruating age "would not" be able to observe the 41 days of abstinence before
making the pilgrimage must have failed to impress the judges. The argument is not only mere
uncalculated speculation but it also an undermining statement trying to demarcate what possible
women of a menstruating age could do. This verdict makes it crystal clear that the court feels that
the rights of an individual are more important than the rights of an organization whose actions
could affect the individual which means Article 25 prevails over Article 26.

The statement by Justice Dipak Misra, ‘Any rule based on segregation of women about
biological characteristics is indefinable and unconstitutional’ makes it pretty obvious that the
Judgment was delivered keeping in mind the unmerited discrimination against women rather
than depriving religion of its legacy. CJI Misra contended that patriarchal notions cannot be
allowed to triumph equality in devotion. I think the clinching factor, in this case, is the finale that
the devotees of Lord Ayyapa do not constitute a separate denomination due to arbitrariness.

The Dissenting vote from Justice Indu Malhotra has been raising questions over the
judgment. It is important to note that she is the only woman on the panel said that the petition
does not even deserve to be entertained at all. Most of her deductions came along the line that the
practice of denying entry to women has been followed diligently for centuries and is part of a
long-held tradition. A cursory reading of the 1991 Kerala High Court verdict 6upholding the ban
in the first place would disprove that deduction entirely. The Travancore Devaswom Board and
5
Article 25 of the Indian Constitution

6
S. Mahendran vs The Secretary, Travancore on 5 April 1991
the chief secretary (representing the state of Kerala) had been arraigned as respondents in the
case and they had defended the presence of the women at the temple. The affidavit of the
Devaswom board, which is a matter of public record, said, "For the last 20 years, women
irrespective of their age were allowed to visit the temple when it opened for monthly poojas.
They are not permitted to enter the temple during Mandalam - Makaravilakku season
(November-January)."

It’s important to make a note of the fact that the ban in the first place said that the
entry/mere presence of women deviates the celibacy but then isn't this like placing the burden of
a man's celibacy on a woman. This not only stigmatizes them but also stereotypes them which is
the first step to the door of gender inequality.

As rightly said by J.F Kennedy

"The Right of every man is diminished when the rights of one man are threatened"

It is erroneous to conceive of the issue only as one involving a fissure between individual
freedom and gender justice on the one hand and religious practice on the other. More
importantly, it also reflects a conflict among believers themselves. Therefore, it is essential to
prevent the monopolization of religious rights by a few under the guise of the management of
religious institutions. Those at the helm of affairs can only manage the institutions lawfully and
fairly and they cannot be permitted to manage others' freedom. Any other interpretation of
Articles 25 and 26 would damage the very idea of individual liberty. One of the essentials of a
democratic nation is to preserve this individual's liberty because only then will the person
function in an unbiased manner.

This Judgment gets me thinking as to “will it open a door to a flood of similar

litigations?” I think it will, and it will for the better because gender inequality never does mean
raising the stature of a female to that of a male. It means creating a situation where the above
condition does not even occur. Although, ironically, the Supreme Court has entertained this
petition at a time when Hindu groups are already in the apex court demanding that Hindu
temples be freed from state control whereby ruling parties in every State have the power to
appoint their political flunkeys as well as favored bureaucrats and politicians to management
boards of all major shrines and dharmasthans.

The only suggestions I would have is that while delivering its judgment, the Supreme Court
should keep in mind that none among the devotees of Sabarimala have come to court demanding
changed rules. It’s only hostile and motivated outsiders who are opposing the fig leaf of gender
equality to push their partisan agendas.

CONCLUSION

According to me, Every religion promotes somewhat different norms, creates different
institutions, builds on a different cultural and historical background but we must not forget that at
the end of the day every single work in any nation promoting social equality is a work that
shouldn't be forgotten or criticized, it is to be proud of. We all know that until recently the
women in Saudi Arabia weren’t allowed to drive but they are now. We all know that only 20%
of the researchers in the world are women. We know that out of every 5 victims of trafficking 4
are girls. Maybe amidst the hunger for power and control, we as human beings are forgetting that
all these cultural legacies, rituals customs couldn't possibly be more important than removing
these social evils and helping one another. I think judgments such as these promoting gender
equality and fighting against such discrimination are reaching throughout the world to millions
of despairing men, women, little children, victims of a system that makes the tool of authority a
norm to torture. Believe me when I say this is what's hindering human progress and nothing else.
As far as the cases like Sabarimala go, I think we could use some more like these.