SC reserves verdict on Sabarimala temple case

​New Delhi: Almost four months after it allowed women of reproductive age entry into the Sabarimala temple, the Supreme Court on Wednesday heard review petitions challenging its September verdict. After the hearing, a five-judge constitution bench reserved the verdict in 65 petitions including 56 review petitions and 4 fresh writ petitions in the Sabarimala temple case.

In a U-turn, the board controlling the Sabarimala temple told the Supreme Court that it supports the entry of women of all ages at Kerala's famous hill shrine. The board is controlled by the Kerala government, which has opposed any review of the top court's September order that opened the temple doors to women between the ages of 10 and 50 and set off a huge backlash.

Following a marathon hearing that lasted more than four hours, a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and comprising Justices R F Nariman, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra, reserved its judgment on and said that it would pronounce its order on whether to review the judgment or not.

While the Kerala government stuck to its stand and opposed any review of the Sabarimala verdict, the Travancore Devaswom Board, which controls the Lord Ayyappa temple, made a U-turn, saying it supported the entry of women of all ages. “We have taken a decision to respect the judgment lifting age restrictions on women entry,” senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, who represented the Board, said. The Travancore Devaswom Board is an autonomous body controlled by the state government.

At this, Justice Indu Malhotra, the lone judge who had given a dissenting verdict and ruled in favour of the customs, reminded Dwivedi that the board had earlier opposed the entry of women of all ages to the temple. The board had earlier contended that the celibate character of Lord Ayyappa at Sabarimala temple was a unique religious feature which was protected under the constitution.

Responding to Justice Malhotra, Dwivedi said a particular class could not be discriminated on the ground of “biological attributes”. “Women cannot be excluded from any walk of life on biological attributes… equality is the dominant theme of the Constitution”, he said. Since the Supreme Court verdict, the Kerala government has said just two women, between the ages of 10 and 50, have entered the temple at Sabarimala — Bindu Ammini and Kanakadurga, both in their early 40s.

They had climbed the hill at Sabarimala in the cover of police protection on the morning of January 2. On the other hand, senior advocate Indira Jaising, representing Bindu and Kanakadurga, said it was the fundamental duty of citizens under Article 51A (h) of the Constitution to “develop scientific temper, humanism, spirit of enquiry and reform”. That is what the Supreme Court judgment urges citizens to do.

“What about Article 51A (e)? To promote harmony and common brotherhood...” Justice Rohinton Nariman on the Constitution Bench asked. “It hurts a woman very, very deeply to say she is polluted because she menstruates. The hurt caused by such discrimination goes to the heart of the Constitution,” Jaising submitted to the Bench.

The majority judgment in September 2018 concluded that the exclusion of menstruating women from Sabarimala temple was akin to treating them as the children of a “lesser God”. It had said exclusion of any kind, especially based on a biological attribute, amounted to practice of untouchability, an abolished social evil.

But on Wednesday, the Nair Service Society (NSS), represented by veteran lawyer K Parasaran, sought a review of the verdict on the ground that the exclusion at Sabarimala temple was not based on gender or sex, but on religious faith in and character of the deity.

He assailed the majority verdict, saying Article 15 of the Constitution threw open for the public the secular institutions of the country but it doesn’t deal with religious institutions.

The temple’s chief priest Rajeevaru Kandararu, who is the main review petitioner, argued that “every devotee has a fundamental right to worship in a temple in a manner which is in sync with the character of the deity”.

“Thanthri is the father of the deity. Every deity has a character. The Sabarimala deity, unlike in other Ayyappa temples, has the peculiar character of a Naishtika Brahmachari. The essential religious nature of Sabarimala deity is affirmed and perpetuated everyday by the offerings/pujas conducted in the temple. All this rests on this unique character of the deity. Exclusion of women of a certain age is nothing on moral or immoral,” senior advocate V Giri argued for the priest.

Senior advocate A M Singhvi appearing for the former chairman of Travancore Devaswom Board, which controls the temple, said: “In Hindu religion, God is worshipped in different manifestations... Devotees have to worship in sync with characteristics of that manifestation to attain salvation.”
“What is the effect of your Sabarimala judgment?

It is a mandamus given to a particular religious community that you shall not hold this belief!” asked senior advocate Shekhar Naphade. “Hinduism is the most diverse religion on planet Earth. And here, you want to allow only practices or customs which are ‘universally ethical’ to all Hindus?

Is it possible? Surely, that’s not the right approach to take in such a diverse religion?” Singhvi went on to criticise the September judgment.

The annual pilgrimage season saw violent protests recently as devotees of Lord Ayyappa, the celibate god, tried to stop women and girls between the ages of 10 and 50 years from entering the shrine. The issue has also triggered a political slugfest between Kerala's CPM and the Opposition parties, including the BJP and the Congress.