A five-judge Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, said that the provision in the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965, which authorised the restriction, violated the right of Hindu women to practice religion. Supreme Court on Friday allowed the entry of women of all ages into Sabarimala temple to worship Lord Ayyappa. CJI Dipak Misra while reading out the judgement said devotion cannot be subjected to gender discrimination.
Supreme Court in a 4:1 verdict has ruled in favour of women of all ages entering the Sabarimala temple. CJI Dipak Misra and Justices Khanwilkar, Nariman and Chandrachud were in favour while Justice Malhotra dissented. In her dissent opinion, Justice Malhotra said that the petition does not deserve to be entertained. She added that the verdict will have far-reaching implications for other places of worships.
Justice Indu Malhotra, who has penned a dissenting judgment, says worshippers of Sabarimala temple do not constitute a separate religious denomination. Justice Malhotra is the only woman on the five-judge bench. She adds that the petition does not deserve to be entertained.
Here are the main highlights of the verdict:
* Right to worship is given to all devotees and there cannot be any discrimination on the basis of gender.
* Practice of barring women in age group of 10-50 to go inside the temple is violative of constitutional principles.
* Justice Nariman said Sabarimala Temple custom of barring women in age 10-50 years is not backed by Article 26 of Constitution.
* CJI Misra and justice A M Khanwilkar said devotion cannot be subjected to gender discrimination.
* Patriarchal notion cannot be allowed to trump equality in devotion.
* Religion is a way to link life with divinity, said CJI Misra.
* Subversion of women rights under the garb of physiological phenomenon cannot be allowed.
* The devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a separate religious denomination and they are Hindus.
* Restrictions put by Sabarimala temple can’t be held as essential religious practice
* Justice Chandrachud said any custom or religious practice that violates dignity of women by denying them entry because of her physiology is unconstitutional. To treat women as children of lesser god is unconstitutional.
* Exclusion of women because she menstruates is utterly unconstitutional, said Justice Chandrachud.
* Court’s must not grant legitimacy to religious practices which derogate women, said Justice Chandrachud.
* CJI Dipak Misra, justices R F Nariman, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud were on one side while Justice Indu Malhotra dissented on Sabarimala issue.
* Justice Indu Malhotra said the present judgement would have wider ramifications and is not limited to Sabarimala.
* Justice Malhotra said the issues raised have deep religious connotation and should not be tinkered with to maintain secular atmosphere in the country.
A group of five women lawyers has challenged Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965, which authorises restriction on women “of menstruating age”. They moved the apex court after the Kerala HC upheld the centuries-old restriction, and ruled that only the “tantri (priest)” was empowered to decide on traditions.
Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, who represented the petitioners, said the restrictions went against Articles 14, 15 and 17 of the Constitution. She argued that the custom is discriminatory in nature and stigmatised women, and that women should be allowed to pray at the place of their choice.
Full Judgement here:
[embeddoc url=”https://legaldesire.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/18956_2006_Judgement_28-Sep-2018.pdf” download=”all”]
Justice Indu Malhotra, who has penned a dissenting judgment, says worshippers of Sabarimala temple do not constitute a separate religious denomination. Justice Malhotra is the only woman on the five-judge bench. She adds that the petition does not deserve to be entertained.
Here are the main highlights of the verdict:
* Right to worship is given to all devotees and there cannot be any discrimination on the basis of gender.
* Practice of barring women in age group of 10-50 to go inside the temple is violative of constitutional principles.
* Justice Nariman said Sabarimala Temple custom of barring women in age 10-50 years is not backed by Article 26 of Constitution.
* CJI Misra and justice A M Khanwilkar said devotion cannot be subjected to gender discrimination.
* Patriarchal notion cannot be allowed to trump equality in devotion.
* Religion is a way to link life with divinity, said CJI Misra.
* Subversion of women rights under the garb of physiological phenomenon cannot be allowed.
* The devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a separate religious denomination and they are Hindus.
* Restrictions put by Sabarimala temple can’t be held as essential religious practice
* Justice Chandrachud said any custom or religious practice that violates dignity of women by denying them entry because of her physiology is unconstitutional. To treat women as children of lesser god is unconstitutional.
* Exclusion of women because she menstruates is utterly unconstitutional, said Justice Chandrachud.
* Court’s must not grant legitimacy to religious practices which derogate women, said Justice Chandrachud.
* CJI Dipak Misra, justices R F Nariman, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud were on one side while Justice Indu Malhotra dissented on Sabarimala issue.
* Justice Indu Malhotra said the present judgement would have wider ramifications and is not limited to Sabarimala.
* Justice Malhotra said the issues raised have deep religious connotation and should not be tinkered with to maintain secular atmosphere in the country.