New Delhi: The Supreme Court is hearing petitions challenging a 2018 order that allowed women of menstruating age into the Sabarimala temple in Kerala. The apex court is examining seven points to set up a legal framework. These seven important questions are as follows:
- The scope of religious freedom under Article 25
- How individual rights under Article 25 interact with the rights of religious denominations under Article 26
- Whether the rights of a religious denomination under Article 26 are subject to other fundamental rights beyond public order, morality, and health
- The scope of ‘morality’ in Articles 25 and 26, including the concept of ‘Constitutional Morality’
- The limits of judicial review in identifying “Essential Religious Practices”
- The meaning of “Sections of Hindus” in Article 25(2)(b) concerning access to religious institutions
- Whether a person outside a specific religious group can challenge its practices through a Public Interest Litigation.
What has the Centre told the court?
During the hearing, the Centre on Tuesday told the SC that the 2018 judgment was wrongly decided and deserves to be declared a wrong law, according to live law. Appearing for the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the 2018 ruling requires reconsideration and reversal on legal grounds.
The SG also submitted that he has strong objections to the view expressed in the judgment that the restriction on women’s entry amounted to untouchability, violating Article 17 of the Constitution. The restriction on women’s entry was only based on age, he argued. The SG also added that there was no universal exclusion of women in Ayyappa Temples. He stated that Sabarimala’s restriction was due to the unique nature of the deity.
The SG questioned why advocates for women’s entry into the Sabarimala temple invoke “patriarchy.”
“India, my Lords, has always not only treated ladies equally, but they have always been treated at a higher pedestal. There are several judgments of the recent past where there is a concept of ‘patriarchal society’ or there is some ‘gender stereotypes’ etc. They were never there. In Indian society, we worship ladies. The President of India to the Prime Minister of India to the judges of the Supreme Court, we bow down before our ladies deities. So let us not introduce those concepts of ‘patriarchy’ and ‘gender stereotypes’. There has never been (such notions in India),” he told the Court, as reported by Bar and Bench.
Why is this hearing significant?
The 9 judge constitutional bench, set up by Chief Justice Surya Kant, are also expected to consider other similar cases from different faiths. The court’s guidelines will also help decide whether women can be denied entry into other places of worship, like Parsi temples and Muslim mosques.
