In a landmark verdict, the Supreme Court of India, Friday lifted a ban that prevented women and girls between the age of 10 and 50 from entering the famous Sabarimala temple in Kerala, holding this centuries-old Hindu religious practice is illegal as well as unconstitutional.
The apex court, in a 4:1 majority, stated that the temple practice violates the rights of Hindu women and the entry ban is a form of gender discrimination which is not accepted.
The denial of this right to women significantly denies them of their right to worship,” the court said. Justices AM Khanwilkar, RF Nariman concurred with the CJI.
Justice DY Chandrachud termed the custom as a form of “untouchability” which cannot be allowed under the Constitution. “Article 17 certainly applies to untouchability practices in relation to lower castes, but it will also apply to the systemic humiliation, exclusion and subjugation faced by women.”
Sabarimala is a prominent Hindu temple which attracts tens of millions of pilgrims every year. The hill top shrine remains open only for a little over four months in a year and the approach is through a forested area that involves an arduous 5-km trek from the Pampa river base camp..
Describing the verdict as "unfortunate", Rahul Easwar, the president of the Ayyappa Dharma Sena, said the organisation would file a review petition against the judgement.
Easwar, grandson of a former Sabarimala priest the late Kandararu Maheswararu, said, "We will defintely go ahead with the fight."
The verdict has been welcomed with people taking to social media specifically Twitter to express their happiness. “What month for empowerment. Triple Talak gone, Adultery not a crime, LGBTQ can live in please and now #Sabarimala. Pillars of patriarchy is finally going down,” read one of the many comments tweeted out using hashtag #Sabarimala
Devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not form separate religious denominations, Justice Chandrachud said and added that any custom or religious practice if violates dignity of women by denying them entry due to her physiology is unconstitutional.
He said the popular notion about morality can be offensive to dignity of others and exclusion of women because she menstruates is utterly unconstitutional.
Justice Chandrachud held that exclusion of women is violative of right to liberty, dignity and equality and said banning women of a particular age group is not essential practice of religion.
In her dissenting verdict, Justice Malhotra said issues which have deep religious connotation should not be tinkered with to maintain secular atmosphere in the country.
She said right to equality conflicts with right to worship of devotees of Lord Ayyappa.
She said the issue in this case not limited to Sabarimala only. It will have far reaching implications for other places of worships.
The apex court, in a 4:1 majority, stated that the temple practice violates the rights of Hindu women and the entry ban is a form of gender discrimination which is not accepted.
The denial of this right to women significantly denies them of their right to worship,” the court said. Justices AM Khanwilkar, RF Nariman concurred with the CJI.
Justice DY Chandrachud termed the custom as a form of “untouchability” which cannot be allowed under the Constitution. “Article 17 certainly applies to untouchability practices in relation to lower castes, but it will also apply to the systemic humiliation, exclusion and subjugation faced by women.”
Sabarimala is a prominent Hindu temple which attracts tens of millions of pilgrims every year. The hill top shrine remains open only for a little over four months in a year and the approach is through a forested area that involves an arduous 5-km trek from the Pampa river base camp..
Describing the verdict as "unfortunate", Rahul Easwar, the president of the Ayyappa Dharma Sena, said the organisation would file a review petition against the judgement.
Easwar, grandson of a former Sabarimala priest the late Kandararu Maheswararu, said, "We will defintely go ahead with the fight."
The verdict has been welcomed with people taking to social media specifically Twitter to express their happiness. “What month for empowerment. Triple Talak gone, Adultery not a crime, LGBTQ can live in please and now #Sabarimala. Pillars of patriarchy is finally going down,” read one of the many comments tweeted out using hashtag #Sabarimala
Devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not form separate religious denominations, Justice Chandrachud said and added that any custom or religious practice if violates dignity of women by denying them entry due to her physiology is unconstitutional.
He said the popular notion about morality can be offensive to dignity of others and exclusion of women because she menstruates is utterly unconstitutional.
Justice Chandrachud held that exclusion of women is violative of right to liberty, dignity and equality and said banning women of a particular age group is not essential practice of religion.
In her dissenting verdict, Justice Malhotra said issues which have deep religious connotation should not be tinkered with to maintain secular atmosphere in the country.
She said right to equality conflicts with right to worship of devotees of Lord Ayyappa.
She said the issue in this case not limited to Sabarimala only. It will have far reaching implications for other places of worships.
Every girl of the town loved Him, longed to spend time with His tactic nature
and wished they could feel Him every second.
Then finally what takes Krishna-The Flute God, The Ultimate, away from all these, did His Human Love Meera ever get a chance to meet her beloved God?
Click the Image to Know More
Comments
Post a Comment