Equal in sabarimala

Equal in sabarimala

SC rules against patriarchy in religion.

Supreme Court has allowed women of all ages entry into Sabarimala temple, overruling a tradition that believed menstruating women distracted the shrine’s presiding deity Ayyappa and his celibate worshippers. The 4-1 verdict noted that the right to worship under Article 25(1) was equally available to men and women. The court rejected the Travancore Devaswom Board and others’ claims that the tradition constituted an essential religious practice. It also dismissed arguments that judicial intervention was an infringement of constitutional protections guaranteed under Article 26 to religious denominations to manage their own affairs.

This conflict between constitutional rights and age-old social customs is not new in our constitutional history. If the political class struck the first blows through constitutional rights granting equality and freedoms and statutory laws prohibiting untouchability and other social evils, the judiciary, unencumbered by political or populist compulsions, has helped take forward social reform. In a case like Sabarimala where the right to equality conflicts with the right of religious institutions, equality and individual freedom must take precedence.

There is also a strong differing view as espoused by Justice Indu Malhotra, who concludes that the equality doctrine enshrined under Article 14 does not override religious freedoms that are in accordance with the tenets of a religion. On the other hand Justice Chandrachud opines that “carving out ‘custom or usage’ from constitutional scrutiny, denies the constitutional vision of ensuring the primacy of individual dignity.” He also castigates the imposition of the burden of a man’s celibacy on a woman which is then used to deny her access to spaces to which she is equally entitled. The judgment also opens a Pandora’s box: will courts rule on religious bars to women priests and many other social and religious customs where patriarchy is prevalent?