Introduction: India being a democratic country still puts a question mark on its democratic nature by putting ban on entry on the women in temples. Our Indian constitution guarantees equality to every citizen of the country but recent issue of Sabarimala Temple puts a question mark on this nature of equality. This matter arose when a petition was sought for the entry for all women and girls in the Sabarimala temple which, as a practice, does not allow girls after attaining puberty to enter the premises. The Apex court had on January 11 questioned the age-old tradition of banning entry of women of menstrual age group in the Kerala temple, saying this cannot be done under the Constitution. A SC Bench also observed that Sabarimala was a public temple and everyone needed to have “the right to access”. At best, there can be religious restrictions and not a general restriction, the apex court had observed. No temple ritual, ceremony or custom can be made any ground for discriminating against women in the matter of worshiping in any temple, including Sabarimala, as it is a clear violation of the constitutional equality and freedom guaranteed for men and women alike. The Court while considering the case stated that gender equality was a “constitutional message” and the ban on entry of women of a particular age group in the Sabarimala temple cannot be claimed as a right to manage religious affairs by its management.
Senior advocate and amicus curiae Raju Ramachandran argued that a ban on women worshipping a deity just because of their biology was detrimental to their dignity. He further contended that any other morality, including an institutional one based on tradition that access to worship for women aged between 10 and 55 at Sabarimala temple would “disturb” the celibate deity, was subservient to constitutional morality that there should not be discrimination in the name of gender, sex, caste, etc.
History: Sabarimala is one of the few temples in India that welcomes men and women of every caste. Devotees dress uniformly in black. The colour signifies a renunciation of all worldly pleasures, but it also means that everyone is equal before Ayappa, irrespective of caste. In fact, the hierarchy among devotees is based on how many times the pilgrimage has been made and not on caste. A Dalit can lead the prayers and a Brahmin in the group must still touch his feet. You won’t see this anywhere else. Ayappa is a historical figure. He was the prince of Panthalam, a small kingdom located in the Patthanamthitta district in Kerala. Apart from the historical Ayappa, there is a puranic legend associated with him, which says he is the son of Vishnu and Shiva. This is believed to be a union of forces, not the result of an actual physical relationship. It means he has traits of both gods and that’s what makes him a particularly potent deity in the eyes of his devotees. So, the question arises that why women are restricted? For the answer, we need to go back to the legend. According to the puranas, Ayappa was born to destroy a female demon that, thanks to a boon, could only be vanquished by a child born of both Shiva and Vishnu. When Ayappa fulfils his destiny by killing her, a beautiful woman emerges from the body. She had been cursed to live as a demon, but her killing reversed the curse. Now free, she asks Ayappa to marry her.
Statistics: This is not the only religious institution where women are not allow to enter the premises, there are many like this in our “secular” country India. One of the example is of Haji Ali where women are not allowed to touch the shrine. Although PIL was filed before the court and this ban was even reconsidered when the Haji Ali trustees met but the result was the same. Also there are many temples which prohibit the entry of women, during their menstruation cycle as they are considered impure which is totally illogical. Also, the case of shanishignapur can be taken where women are not allowed to touch the shrine but now it is allowed.
Analysis and Decision: “What right does temple have to forbid women from entering any part of temple? The reasons banning anything must be common for all,” said the court, adding: “Anyone can worship a God or Goddess. We have structured God into an idol although he is omnipresent. Can you say don’t come because you are a woman? The ground in this case is that gender justice is in danger.” The condition of women can now termed as neo-harijans. Whereas on the other hand we say women as aadishakti but we do not give that status. Also, we term women as impure and consider this reason for the non-entry of women in religious institution. But we should also see that due to this impurity, you can see the world. But finally the apex court removed the ban to the entry of the women.
My Opinion: Any scripture in India does not forbids women from entering the inner sanctums of places of worship. We can see the Shani Shingnapur temple where the women can now enter with dignity and nothing has happened bad which was said when their was no entry of women. Similarly women should be given equal right to enter the inner sanctums as men in other religious institution like Haji Ali are given. More PIL’s should be filed so that women should get equal status and not the “SECONDARY STATUS” as equal status in enshrined in the Constitution.
Also, often this question is asked that why women should not enter inner sanctums? And the answer is they go through the menstrual cycle that is why they are considered as impure. Then what about the male who are born out of the womb of a female, will they call themselves, “impure”. Then according to these standards, they should be considered as impure. If Constitution has given equal rights then we should assert them and if men are allowed to enter the inner sanctum of religious institution then women should also be given.
Article by: Shubhangi Gupta
Institute of Law, Nirma University
A COMPREHENSIVE WEBSITE FOR ALL LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS