RSS Slams Kerala Govt for Implementing SC’s Sabarimala Verdict

In a 4:1 verdict, the Supreme Court had granted women, of all age groups, entry into Kerala's Sabarimala temple, breaking the temple's age-old tradition of restricting menstruating women from entering its premises.

The five-judge bench, headed by then CJI Dipak Misra with Justices RF Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra pronounced the verdict, with Malhotra dissenting.

The Supreme Court will pronounce its verdict on a clutch of pleas challenging the ban on entry of women between 10 and 50 years of age into the Sabarimala temple in Kerala on Friday, 28 September.

A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra had reserved its judgment on 1 August after hearing the matter for eight days.

The bench, which also comprised Justices RF Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra, had earlier said that the constitutional scheme prohibiting exclusion has "some value" in a "vibrant democracy".

The top court's verdict would deal with the petitions filed by petitioners Indian Young Lawyers Association and others.

The Kerala government, which has been changing its stand on the contentious issue of women of the menstrual age group entering the Sabarimala temple, had on 18 July told the Supreme Court that it now favoured their entry.

The apex court had on 13 October last year referred the issue to a constitution bench after framing five "significant" questions including whether the practice of banning entry of women into the temple amounted to discrimination and violated their fundamental rights under the Constitution.

The verdict will be pronounced as four separate judgments, CNN-News18 reported.

Sabarimala judgment is a 4:1 verdict, with Justice Indu Malhotra dissenting. While reading the judgment for himself and Justice Khanwilkar, CJI Dipak Misra said that a woman is not lesser or inferior to a man and that patriarchy of religion cannot be permitted to trump over faith.

“Religion is basically way of life however certain practices create incongruities,” he said.

“The exclusionary practice given the backing of a legislation is not an integral part of religion,” said the CJI.

SC in a 4:1 judgment allowed the entry of women of all age groups into Sabarimala temple.

Justice Nariman while reading his verdict said that there is no protection under Article 26 for Ayyappa devotees and therefore the rules will not apply so far as Sabarimala issue is concerned.

He further said that women are equally entitled for religious practice.

“Morality for the purpose of 25 and 26 is ephemeral in nature. Fundamental Rights under PART III of Constitution is essential for transformation of a society. Dignity of individual is an unwavering nature of fundamental rights,” he said.

Birthmarks and physiology are not the basis to deny constitutional entitlements, said Justice Chandrachud. “To treat women as children of a lesser god is to blink at the constitution itself,” he said.

Justice Indu Malhotra, the only woman and dissenting judge in the 4:1 verdict said that issues of deep religious sentiments should not see the Court's interference.

“Court should not interfere unless if there is any aggrieved person from that section or religion,” read Justice Malhotra.

She further stated that Sabarimala shrine and the deity is protected by Article 25 of Constitution of India. “Notion of rationality should not be seen in matters of religion,” she added.

A Padmakumar, Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) president, said that the board will file a review petition against the Supreme Court’s verdict.

“We will go for a review petition after getting support from other religious heads,” he said.

Activist Rahul Easwar said that he will continue the fight on behalf of Sabarimala temple as the verdict affects the core temple beliefs.

Activist Trupti Desai, who was advocating the rights of women of all age groups to enter Sabarimala, said that an anarchical mindset has been abolished with the verdict.

Rekha Sharma, NCW Chief said that now women can choose if they want to go to the temple unlike earlier when the decision was imposed on them.

“I welcome the decision. Now women can choose if they want to go or not. Earlier it was imposed on them in name of religion. When right to equality and religion are there, right to equality should win,” said Sharma.

The Supreme Court's verdict allowing entry of women of all ages into the Ayyappa temple, was "disappointing", but the 'Tantri family' will accept it, Sabarimala head priest Kandararu Rajeevarau said.

A Tantri is the Vedic head priest of Hindu temples in Kerala.

Maneka Gandhi, Union Minister for Women and Child Development said the verdict brings the way forward for Hinduism to become even more inclusive.

“It’s a wonderful decision. It opens up and brings the way forward for Hinduism to become even more inclusive and not a property of one caste or one sex,” said Gandhi.

Karnataka Women and Child Development Minister Jayamala termed as "historic" the Supreme Court verdict on entry of women into the Lord Ayyappa Temple and said women have now got justice.

The actress-turned-politician had created a storm some years ago by claiming that she had in her prime youth entered the sanctum sanctorum of the temple and touched the idol of the presiding deity.

"There is no happier moment in my life other than this. I thank the women community, Supreme Court judges and God today...I also thank Ambedkar who wrote our Constitution," Jayamala told reporters.

Kerala government and Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) have decided not to seek review of the Sabarimala verdict by the Supreme Court, reported ANI.

Kerala chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan said that additional women police personnel will be deployed to maintain law and order in the temple premises.

Calling Kerala government’s decision to implement SC’s judgment on allowing women’s entry into the Sabarimala Temple, RSS released a statement on Wednesday, 3 October.

“Unfortunately, the Kerala government has taken steps to implement the judgment with immediate effect without taking the sentiments of the devotees into consideration,” the statement read.

While the Supreme Court judgment should be respected, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh said, it calls upon all the stakeholders, including spiritual and community leaders to come together to analyse and address the issue availing judicial options also.

“They must convey their concerns on their right to worship in a manner which best suits their faith and devotion, to the authorities in a peaceful manner,” the statement read.

Protesting against the Supreme Court verdict, of allowing entry of women of all ages into the Sabarimala temple, devotees of Ayyappa took to the streets outside Jantar Mantar, however with placards in favour of their “new idol”- Justice Indu Malhotra- the lone dissenting judge in the matter, The Indian Express reported.

Former Kerala High Court Judge, Kemal Pasha, on Wednesday, 3 October, said that without dismissing the recent Supreme court verdict lifting the ban on the entry of women into the Sabarimala temple, it would still be advisable for women devotees to “observe self-imposed restriction”, keeping in mind their safety, The Hindu reported.

Congress spokesperson, Randeep Surjewala on Thursday, 4 October, said that the party’s Kerala unit was well within its rights to express their opinions on the Sabarimala verdict.

Surjewala’s comments come after Ramesh Chennithala, the Opposition leader in the state, expressed the need for a review petition to be filed against the verdict, following which the former Kerala CM, Oommen Chandy, wrote to CM Vijayan, asking him to explore such a possibility, DNA reported.