SABRIMALA: AN INVASION ON BELIEFS
Sabarimala: An Invasion on Beliefs
Background
Sabarimala Temple is a famous Hindu pilgrimage site in Kerala, dedicated to Lord Ayyappa.
Traditionally, women of menstruating age (roughly between 10 and 50 years) were not allowed to enter the temple.
The restriction was justified by devotees as a religious custom and belief linked to the celibate nature of Lord Ayyappa.
The Controversy
In 2018, the Supreme Court of India ruled in a landmark judgment that the ban on women between 10 and 50 years entering the Sabarimala temple was unconstitutional.
The Court held that:
The exclusion violated Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 15 (Prohibition of discrimination based on sex) of the Constitution.
It infringed on women’s fundamental right under Article 25 (Freedom of Religion) because the right to practice religion cannot violate fundamental rights or constitutional principles.
The judgment was met with protests by devotees and religious groups, who argued it was an invasion of their religious beliefs and customs.
Why Do Many See It as an "Invasion on Beliefs"?
Religious Freedom vs. Gender Equality
Devotees saw the ruling as the state and judiciary interfering with religious customs protected under Article 25.
They argue that religious practices and beliefs are deeply personal and inviolable.
For them, the ban was part of the temple’s religious identity and faith.
Cultural and Emotional Sentiments
The ban is linked to centuries-old traditions.
Many believe the ruling disrupts their faith, sentiments, and cultural heritage.
The protests often claim it’s not about denying rights but preserving sanctity.
Judiciary vs. Religious Autonomy
The decision sparked debate about the limits of judicial intervention in religion.
Some argue that courts overstepped by overriding religious customs which should be left to the community or legislature.
The Other Side: Upholding Constitutional Values
The Supreme Court emphasized that gender equality and non-discrimination are supreme constitutional values.
Religious practices cannot violate fundamental rights or perpetuate discrimination.
The Court ruled that denying women entry is a form of gender-based discrimination, incompatible with constitutional morality.
It also clarified that religious beliefs are not above constitutional scrutiny.
Impact and Continuing Debate
The ruling triggered widespread protests, violence, and political debates.
The Kerala government and the police faced challenges in implementing the verdict.
The case led to a review petition pending in the Supreme Court to reconsider the decision.
The issue represents the broader tension between religious freedom and individual rights in a secular democracy.
Summary
| Aspect | Viewpoint |
|---|---|
| Religious Belief | Ban respects Lord Ayyappa’s celibate nature; preserve tradition |
| Gender Equality | Ban violates women’s fundamental rights and is discriminatory |
| Judiciary Role | Courts must uphold constitutional rights over customs |
| Religious Autonomy | Religious practices should be free from state interference |
| Constitutional Morality | Constitution demands equality and non-discrimination |
Conclusion
The Sabarimala issue is a complex and emotional clash between religious beliefs and constitutional values. Calling it an "invasion on beliefs" reflects the sentiment that the judiciary has interfered with deeply held religious customs.
At the same time, the debate highlights the challenge of balancing respect for religious diversity with upholding fundamental rights, especially gender equality, in a pluralistic society like India.
Do write to us if you need any further assistance.
RELATED Blog
0 comments