The Sabarimala Verdict: Right, or Wrong?

For people who are unaware of the case, the Sabarimala Temple is an annual pilgrimage site to a lot of Indians which traditionally has the practice of not allowing entry to the women pilgrims of the ages between 10-50 years inside the temple premises.

Consequently, a PIL was filed in the Supreme Court of India, stating that this practice was discriminatory to women.

Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that this indeed was discriminatory, and abolished the practice.


Before putting forth my views on the subject, I'd like to say that I'm not an expert in law and my comprehension of the arguments presented in the Supreme Court may probably be incorrect. This is my attempt at questioning my own arguments and views regarding the case.

At the outset, it looks like a regressive practice - of that banning women to a temple which is supposed to be a public property. Obviously, I welcomed the judgment of the SC. However, a thing which kind of irked me was that the only woman on the 5 judge bench, Justice Indu Malhotra opposed the view of the other judges. Of course, I was irked, like many others. Why the hell should a woman be the one to be a hindrance the rights of other women? After all, in this age of equality, this was a retarded judgement on her part.

I saw numerous news articles/comments shitting on the judge for arguably a valid reason. Let me quote what she said in her judgement.

Indu Malhotra said the right to equality conflicted with the right to worship of devotees of Lord Ayyappa -- the deity of the Sabarimala temple -- and that the equality doctrine can't override the fundamental right to worship under Article 25 of the Constitution. She said notions of rationality can't be brought into matters of religion.
Courtesy: India Today

I considered this a stupid argument. After all, the fundamental right to equality cannot override the right to religion. What bullshit argument was this by the judge? I even questioned her credentials (such excited was I).

"Notions of rationality cannot be invoked in matters of religion," Justice Indu Malhotra said. "What constitutes essential religious practice is for the religious community to decide, not for the court. India is a diverse country. Constitutional morality would allow all to practise their beliefs. The court should not interfere unless if there is any aggrieved person from that section or religion."
Courtesy: Indian Express

Again, I interpreted this to be a confirmation that religion was, at its core, irrational, and a moral system could be applied to a religion which is again a stupid argument to make.

Other judges, on the other hand, had saner opinions.

The CJI says patriarchal rules have to change, and that patriarchy in religion cannot be allowed to trump right to pray and practise religion. He adds that any rule based on biological characteristics cannot pass muster of constitutional test.

The Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965, violate the right of Hindu women to practice religion, says CJI. The practice of age restrictions on women entry to Sabarimala temple cannot be treated as essential practice, he adds. CJI has written the judgment on behalf of himself and Justice Khanwilkar.

Justice Rohinton Nariman concurred with CJI Dipak Misra.

"Religion cannot be cover to deny women right to worship. To treat women as children of lesser God is to blink at Constitutional morality," Justice Chandrachud said in the observation.

Justice Chandrachud also said that not allowing the woman to enter because they are of procreating age is "derogatory" to them. "To exclude women of the age group 10-50 from the temple is to deny dignity to women. To suggest that women cannot undertake the 41-day vratham is to stereotype them," he said.

I agreed. The supreme court had my full support. I even got into a couple of heated arguments on an online forum.

What sort of god is Ayappa if he thinks that interacting with women will spoil his eternal vow of being a brahmacharya? Is he some kind of Marvel's Daredevil type guy who knows which woman is going through her menses and who is not? And, if he was really a god, he could have easily made the judgement in his favour if he wanted to. Which he does not.

I supported the judgement because it paved the way to remove illogical laws in religions. It might also be a road to the UCC which I believe, should be implemented in the modern nation states. I assumed that the other side was wrong before knowing the specifics of the case, and just went with it, passing my own judgements on the case.

I did know some arguments made, however. Some people argued that there exist some women-only temples in India too. Well OK. Just because there are some women-only temples, it shouldn't be a case that the Sabarimala should be a men-only temple too. Which is my justification for the SC judgement, but I think now which is very flawed.

In another of an unrelated online thread, a Sikh user remarked that he had visited the Padmanabhaswamy Temple in Kerala which banned turbans inside the temple. This led me to question my earlier assumptions about equality in the context of Indian religions.

Consider that I visit the Sai Baba temple in Shirdi. Considering that the temple should not discriminate against any person of religion, caste, or gender, would it be alright if I could wear my footwear inside the temple premises. Not allowing this would amount to this being discrimination to someone who believes that it'd be ok to worship a deity with their footwear on. Similar would be the case if I wanted to go to a Shani temple with leather goods. Would doing this be a violation of my religious freedom?

Another user in a thread asked what about women being denied an entry into the inner sanctum Masjids(not to be confused with Dargahs). My retort to the user was did any women actually want to enter the Masjid? The answer might be no, but I later realised that the question was a valid point. Where is the line drawn between religious freedom and constitutional democratic values?

What complicates this matter is the concept of religious denomination. What a denomination means is a subgroup within the religion. The guys against the petition argued that the Sabarimala devotees form a religious denomination, which was rejected by the court. It doesn't make sense to group everyone is a Hindu, but not from a denomination considering there's nothing such as organized religion of Hinduism itself. Moreover, this judgement by SC is compulsive on the people, and not really generated out of internal dialogues/discussions between the devotees themselves. This is like mandating there can be a female Pope in the c. That would be something I'd agree with but isn't the best approach when considering religion. Mandation of such a decision would lead to outright rejection of it from the people.

A better argument is made in the following podcast by NewsLaundry:

Reporters Without Orders Ep 39: #Aadhaar, farmer’s protest, PTI sackings and more

Listen after the 35:00 min mark.

Also listen to the following video, which answers a lot of novice points that a layman like me did not consider.

This brings us again to the original decision of the SC. I went through Justice Indu Malhotra's judgement again.

In her judgement, she said, "In a pluralistic society comprising of people with diverse faiths, beliefs and traditions, to entertain PILs challenging religious practices followed by any group, sect or denomination, could cause serious damage to the constitutional and secular fabric of this country." 

The article 14, right to equality, Justice Malhotra said that it cannot be the only touchstone to test religious customs and practises. She said, "Article 25 (freedom of religion) specifically provides the equal entitlement of every individual to freely practise their religion. Equal treatment under Article 25 is conditioned by the essential beliefs and practises of any religion. Equality in matters of religion must be viewed in the context of the worshippers of the same faith."

Justice Malhotra observed that there are 1000 temples of Lord Ayyappa where women are not denied entry. She said," The right to gender equality to offer worship to Lord Ayyappa is protected by permitting women of all ages, to visit temples where he has not manifested himself in the form of a ‘Naishtik Brahmachari’, and there is no similar restriction in those temples. It is pertinent to mention that the Respondents, in this context, have submitted that there are over 1000 temples of Lord Ayyappa, where he has manifested in other forms, and this restriction does not apply. 

Justice Malhotra, observing petitioners' argument based on women being treated as untouchables, thus drawing a parallel between the rights of dalits under Article 17 which abolishes untouchability, said that the analogy is "misconceived". She said," The right asserted by dalits was in pursuance of right against systematic social exclusion and for social acceptance per se. In the case of temple entry, social reform preceded the statutory reform, and not the other way about." Justice Malhotra concluded that the Article 17 referred to the practice of untouchability as committed in the Hindu community against harijans or people from depressed classes, and not women, as contended by the Petitioners. 
Courtesy: Times Of India

If you have listened to the NewsLaundry podcast linked above, you would notice that they also talk about PILs now being abused by the people who have no stake in the matter. They also say that not one petitioner came up to the SC alleging discrimination by the Sabarimala temple authority. This says a lot about our(me included) armchair gender rights activism.


Is the verdict correct, or not? Let me know in the comments.