Vinod Sharma
Sabarimala Temple, is a famous Hindu shrine. The temple complex is located in Periyar Tiger reserve in state of Kerala. Annual pilgrimage is estimated to be more than 30 million devotees. Temple is dedicated to Lord Ayyappan ( also known as Dharma Sastha ), who is believed son of Shiva & Vishnu. Temple is located at an altitude of 480 mts, surrounded by mountains & dense forests. Temple is very very ancient & believed to be one of five Sastha temples, founded by Lord Parsurama. After installation of temple , it is believed to have remained untraceable for about three centuries. It was only in 12th century , when a prince of “Pandalam ” dynasty rediscovered original path to reach Sabarimala.
Temple is opened for devotees for darshan only during days of Mandal Pooja (Approximately 15 Nov to 26 Dec ); Makara Sankranti (14 jan ) , Maha Vishwa Sankranti ( 14 April) & also the first five days of each Malayalam Month.
Before 1991, women used to visit the temple though in small numbers, mostly for rice feeding ceremonies of their children in temple premises. Kannada actress -politician Jayamala has publicly claimed that she entered Sabarimala temple in 1987 , as a 28 year old young girl, even touched the deity , as part of a film shoot, with the consent and connivance of the then priest.
One gentleman named Mahendran, in 1990, when he was about 24 years old came to know about the entry of a woman in the temple, which appeared as a news in a local news paper , along with a photograph . The news and the photograh was that of a rice feeding ceremony of a child, who was grand daughter of former Devaswom commissioner, Chandrika. In the ceremony Chandrika’s daughter ( mother of child) was also present . The news along with Photograph had appeared in the ” Janak Bhoomi ” daily. Based on said news item and pic ,Mahendran sent a letter to the Court, which was accepted as PIL ( Public Interest Litigation ). Taking into account Mahendran ‘s financial status Court even provided a lawyer for him. In 1991, the Court pronounced its judgement in PIL , banning entry of women in the age group of 10 to 50, in the temple.
In Aug 2006, Young Lawyers Association and few others filed a plea in Supreme court requesting therein to ensure entry of female devotees even between age group 10-50 to the temple.
Right since 2006, Supreme court of India has been hearing the matter and the stand of the Government has all along been changing from time to time. The same can be understood better by few examples :–
1) In November 2007, then LDF Government filed affidavit in support of PIL , for allowing women of all age groups to enter the temple.
2) In February 2016, then Congress led government took a U turn and told Supreme Court that Govt. Is duty bound to ” Protect the right of practice of religion of the devotees ”
3) In November 2016, LDF Govt files a fresh Affidavit in Supreme Court saying it favours the entry of women of all age groups to the temple ”
In October 2017, a 2 judge bench of Supreme Court referred the case to a constitution bench to hear & decide the matter.
A 5 Judge s’ bench started hearing the matter from July 2018 onwards. During course of hearings, constitution bench has been making various observations / Comments, some of which are reproduced below:–
1)Ban on entry of women be tested on ” Constitutional Ethos”
2) Bench cant remain oblivious to ban on entry of women, as they were barred on ” Physiological ground of menstruation ”
3)Constitutional scheme prohibiting exclusion has ‘”some value” in a vibrant democracy.
Supreme Court reserved its Judgement on Aug 1, 2018 and delivered the same on September 28, 2018, ruling therein that ” Barring females entry into Shrine is Gender discrimination and practice violates rights of Hindu Women ”
Constitutional bench was a 5 judges bench headed by then Chief Justice of India Sh. Dipak Misra and comprising of Justice RF Nariman, Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Indu Malhotra. It was a 4:1 Verdict, as Justice Indu Malhotra penned a dissenting verdict saying that petition doesn’t deserve to be entertained.
After the Historic Judgement by the constitution bench of highest Court of Country, temple opened for the first time on October 17, 2018. Since then attempts have been made by various women / women organisations but were blocked by violent protests. All attempts till date have failed & police has also failed to provide protection to women intending to visit temple, despite the orders of Supreme Court of India. Irony is that women had to return without entering temple, despite state’s promise & claims to provide full protection to women devotees. Administration & legal duties of temple are managed by ” Travancore Deasvom Board “, an affiliate authority of Government of Kerala. Despite Supreme Court orders, Women devotees everytime had to return without entering temple, despite state promising and claiming full protection. Vigilantes are so far having free run in the matter and rule of Law is at stake.
They came , they tried but failed .Libi CS was among the first to try to enter.Madhavi, from Andhra Pardesh tried to visit but forced to return. Suhasini Raj, accompanied by a foreign national tried but might of state could not provide a safe passage. Kaitha Jakhal accompanied by Rehna Fatima from Hyderabad tried but met the same fate. Mary sweety from Kazhakootam was also turned away. Ballmma, 47 from AP had to be shifted to hospital, after she complained of uneasiness, having been heckled by protestors, that too in presence of security personnel. Bindu, a Dalit Activist was forced to retreat. Again, on Dec 24 , a group of 11 women from Chennai have been forced to abandon their plan to visit Shrine. During these attempts, at times protestors even charged at the women devotees , pelted stones, forcing them to take shelter. Police was contended , having performed their duties , by moving them to safer places.
Though it was duty of state to ensure compliance of Supreme court orders but what happened on ground was completely different. It always appeared, as if Police is enacting drama, as number of protestors at no given time is reported to be more than few thosands. Even presence of IG police S Sreejith could not / did not get the highest court’s orders implemented. Incidents are huge morale boosters for protestors.
In between Women lawyers submitted before Kerala High Court that entry of women in temple is still in limbo, despite orders of the Supreme Court of India. Response of state Govt in black & white in the matter was ” Every Genuine devotee will be offered necessary assistance at saarimala ” but what is happening on ground is totally different.
Political parties are weighing political gains in opposing / supporting the judgement. Orders of the highest Court are being openly flouted on most unreasonable grounds but in the process bigger threat is to for greater things like Gender equality, constitutional values & rule of Law.
feedbackexcelsior@gmail.com
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel