Judiciary – Supreme Court Revisits Debate on Women’s Entry in Sabarimala Temple
Judiciary – The Supreme Court is once again examining the long-standing dispute over women’s access to certain places of worship, with a focus on the Sabarimala temple in Kerala.
The Union government on Thursday supported restrictions on the entry of women of menstruating age into the Sabarimala shrine, arguing that the earlier 2018 ruling was based on assumptions that did not fully consider the diversity of religious practices.
Centre’s Stand on Religious Practices
During the hearing before a nine-judge Constitution bench, the Centre submitted that religious customs should not be viewed solely through the lens of gender equality. It argued that practices differ across temples and traditions, and in some cases, restrictions apply to men as well.
Representing the government, the Solicitor General pointed out examples where male devotees are subject to unique customs. He referred to a temple in Kerala where men participate in rituals dressed as women, highlighting that religious traditions are often context-specific and not necessarily rooted in gender bias.
According to the Centre, the Sabarimala issue should be understood as a faith-based practice rather than a question of discrimination. It maintained that certain traditions are closely tied to the nature of the deity worshipped and the beliefs of devotees.
Broader Questions Before the Bench
The Constitution bench, led by the Chief Justice, is not only examining the Sabarimala matter but also considering wider questions about religious freedom and gender-based restrictions across different faiths. The court is looking into how constitutional principles apply to long-standing religious customs.
The government’s legal team also argued that public morality should be the guiding principle in such matters, rather than interpretations of constitutional morality that may vary over time. This argument challenges earlier judicial reasoning and calls for a more cautious approach when dealing with religious traditions.
Historical Context of the Dispute
The Sabarimala case has been at the centre of national debate for several years. In September 2018, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court ruled by a majority that the ban on women aged between 10 and 50 entering the temple was unconstitutional. The verdict held that the restriction violated fundamental rights and could not be justified as an essential religious practice.
However, the decision triggered widespread discussions and differing opinions across the country. While some welcomed it as a step towards gender equality, others expressed concerns about judicial interference in religious customs.
In November 2019, another Constitution bench revisited the matter and referred the issue, along with similar cases involving other religions, to a larger bench. The court noted that questions related to faith and constitutional rights required deeper examination and could not be resolved without considering the specific facts of each case.
Diverse Traditions Highlight Complexity
The ongoing hearings have brought attention to the diversity of practices within religious communities. For instance, at a temple in Kerala, men participate in an annual festival by dressing as women, a tradition that has been followed for generations. Such examples have been cited to argue that restrictions in religious spaces are not always one-sided or discriminatory in nature.
The Centre has emphasized that each practice must be evaluated within its own religious and cultural context. It has cautioned against applying a uniform standard to all traditions, suggesting that doing so could overlook the nuances of faith-based customs.
Awaiting Judicial Clarity
The outcome of the current proceedings is expected to have far-reaching implications, not only for the Sabarimala temple but also for similar practices across religions in India. The court’s interpretation of constitutional principles in relation to religious freedom will likely shape future legal debates on the subject.
As arguments continue, the case remains a significant test of how the judiciary balances individual rights with the preservation of religious traditions in a diverse society.