The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a landmark judgment in the case of Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. v. The State of Kerala & Ors. The Supreme Court allowed the entry of women of all ages in the Sabarimala Temple. The judgment is a triumph of justice and equality over devotion based on gender discrimination. For several decades, gender discrimination was practised in the name of faith and devotion by the followers of Lord Ayyappa. Women in the age group of 10 to 50 were prohibited from entering the Sabarimala temple. The judgment has been subjected to severe criticism by the followers of Lord Ayyappa, who think it is unnecessary interference into their religious affairs. However, the verdict has many commendable aspects which are mentioned below.
A little background is important to understand the issue at hand. Historically in India, women have been placed at a higher place and worshipped like a deity. However, in many instances, they are subjected to discrimination by society. One such case is the bar on the entry of women of the menstruating age in the temple of Sabarimala. The reason given for such discrimination was that the chief deity of Sabarimala temple is considered to be a celibate. The followers of the deity believe that entry of women of menstruating age will cause impurity in the temple which cannot be allowed. Public interest litigation was filed by young lawyers against such bar and which was accepted and decided by the Supreme Court of India. The commendable aspects of the decision besides gender equality are discussed below: First, it acts as a guardian where tradition comes into conflict with a person’s fundamental rights. Practising faith and devotion in the guise of gender discrimination is contrary to the basic tenets of the Constitution. The bar on the entry of women of menstruating age into the temple is grossly inconsistent with the principle of equality and untouchability. The recent verdict places person’s rights above culture and tradition which are propagated through discrimination. Second, it promotes rationality in religion. No right is absolute in India. It is subject to public health and morality. Right to religion is also subject to certain restrictions so that it does not interfere with the rights of a third person. Right to religion cannot be given an unconditional and wide connotation such that it suppresses other’s rights. Hence, a balance has to be maintained between the rights of a person and the faith of a person.
Third, it serves as a good and rational precedent for the future cases of the clash between rationality and dualism and irrationality in the guise of faith and tradition. It advocated for the end of dualism approach towards our female. On one hand, we preach women like a deity and on the other hand, they are subjected to irrational sanctions and restriction only on the basis of gender. The verdict came heavily on irrationality in name of faith and culture. It also prevents the perpetuation of inequality and untouchability by imposing sanctions on the women. Fourth, it gave a wide interpretation of the freedom of religion. Freedom of religion is subjected to certain restrictions. It should not interfere with the fundamental right of a third person. Furthermore, the court also noted that the bar on the entry of Sabarimala is not an essential religious practice and hence not protected under Article 25 of the Constitution. Fifth, it came down heavily on the patriarchy of religion. A religion is a universal thing above any kind of bias nature. There can be no space for patriarchy of religion in name of faith and tradition. The judgment is a big blow to narrow mindset to a bigot who in the name of religion spreads indignity to women. The judgment is widely celebrated as it reminds us of the idea that above
all religion is the religion of humanity and love.
Author: - Suvum Kumar, National Law University, Jodhpur
Contact: - suvamkumar271998@gmail.com
