The Supreme Court on Thursday, 19 July, pointed out that girls may begin menstruating before the age of 10 and may also hit menopause earlier, thereby questioning the rationale behind banning the entry of women in the 10-50 age group in Kerela’s Sabarimala temple.
According to a PTI, Senior advocate AM Singhvi, appearing for the Travancore Devaswom Board, which runs the temple, had said that the custom was bona fide since it was “physiologically impossible for women to observe 41 days of penance.” Singhvi also said that the Sabarimala is a “unique and strange” temple and that the courts should not step into that domain.
Responding to Singhvi, the constitutional bench headed by CJI Dipak Misra said:
Somebody may stop menstruating at the age of 45. A girl of 9 years of age can have the menstruation. Therefore, there is no rationale at all in this notification.
The bench also however Ramu Rakmachandran, who had been assisting the court as an amicus curiae and had said that the exclusion of women of that age group was in violation of Article 17 of the constitution because it was equivalent to untouchability. The court pointed out that women prohibited from entering the temples can also belong to upper castes while Article 17 solely pertains to schedule castes.
The untouchability has its own connotations. The arguments should be that disallowing women in the temple was not protected under Article 21 (right to life and liberty), 25 and 26 (freedom of religion).The bench
Barring Women From Sabarimala Against Constitutional Mandate: CJI
The Supreme Court on Wednesday, 18 July, continued its hearing on the pleas challenging the ban on the entry of women between 10 and 50 years of age in Kerala's Sabarimala temple, with the Chief Justice of India (CJI) observing that the denial of entry is "against the Constitutional mandate".
"On what basis (do) you (the temple authorities) deny the entry. It is against the Constitutional mandate. Once you open it for public, anybody can go... Where a man can enter, a woman can go. What applies to a man, applies to a woman," observed CJI Dipak Misra.
The Constitution bench, comprising CJI Misra, Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Indu Malhotra, is addressing five “significant” questions that were framed by a three-judge bench while referring the matter on 13 October 2017. Among the questions is whether the practice of banning entry of women in the temple amounted to discrimination and violated their fundamental rights under the Constitution.
On Wednesday, Justice Chandrachud observed that a woman's right to pray is "equal to that of a man and it is not dependent on a law to enable you (woman) to do that... Every woman is also the creation of God and why should there be discrimination against them in employment or worship".
State Govt Changes Stand Again, Supports Women's Entry
Meanwhile, the Kerala government has changed its stand again on the issue, with Kerala Minister for Co-Operation, Tourism and Devaswom, Kadakampally Surendran, saying that the "state government's stand is that women should be allowed to offer prayers in the Sabarimala temple".
We’ve filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court explaining our stand. Now, it has to take a decision. We’re bound to obey its verdict. Devaswom board now has the same opinion as the government.Kadakampally Surendran, Minister, Kerala Government
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)