all women may pray at sabarimala - sosin classes€¦ · in sabarimala is himself a ‘ naishtika...

Supreme Court, in a majori-ty opinion of 4:1 on Friday,lifted the centuries-old pro-hibition on women from theage of menarche to enter thefamed Sabarimala temple inKerala.

The main opinion, sharedby Chief Justice Dipak Misraand Justice A.M. Khanwilkar,said the prohibition reducedthe freedom of religion to a“dead letter,” and the banwas a smear on the indivi-dual dignity of women.

‘No place for dogma’“Relation with the Creator isa transcending one. Physio-logical and biological bar-riers created by rigid socialdogma have no place inthis,” Chief Justice Misrawrote.

The Chief Justice, whoauthored the opinion, heldthat the prohibition wasfounded on the notion thatmenstruating women arepolluted and impure; thatwomen, in this “procreativestage,” would be a deviationfrom the vow of celibacy ta-ken by the male devotees ofLord Ayyappa for the pil-grimage. Besides, the deityin Sabarimala is himself a‘naishtika brahmachari’ oran ‘eternal celibate.’

But Chief Justice Misraheld that the ban was actual-ly the result of hegemonic

patriarchy in religion. “Onthe one side, we pray to god-desses and on the other, wo-men of a certain age are con-sidered impure. This banexacts more purity from wo-men than men. The ban isdiscriminatory.”

Justice D.Y. Chandrachud,in his separate but concur-ring opinion, was unsparing.To treat women as the chil-dren of a lesser God was toblink at the Constitution, hesaid. He termed the social ex-clusion of women, based onmenstrual status, a “form ofuntouchability.” The judgeobserved that notions of“purity and pollution” stig-matised individuals. To ex-clude women was derogato-ry to equal citizenship.

Justice Chandrachud dis-missed the argument thatthe prohibition was in keep-ing with the form of the deityand the vow of celibacy ofthe devotees.

“It is assumed that thepresence of women woulddeviate the celibacy and aus-terity observed by the devo-tees. Such a claim cannot bea constitutionally sustaina-ble argument. Its eff��ect is toimpose the burden of aman’s celibacy on a womanand construct her as a causefor deviation from celibacy.This is then employed to de-ny access to spaces to whichwomen are equally entitled,”he rationalised.

“The notion that womencannot keep the vratham

[vow of celibacy] is to stig-matise and stereotype themas “weak and lesser humanbeings,” Justice Chandra-chud said.

The Chief Justice agreedwith the view that the “meresight of women cannot aff��ectone’s celibacy if one has ta-ken oath of it. Otherwise,such an oath has no mean-ing.” Devotees did not go tothe temple for taking theoath of celibacy but for seek-ing the blessings of Lord Ay-yappa. Maintaining celibacywas only a ritual, Chief Jus-tice Misra said.

All women may pray at Sabarimala

Krishnadas RajagopalNEW DELHI

■ Prohibition amounts to smearon individual dignity, says SC

■ Ban is the result of hegemonicpatriarchy in religion, says CJI

■ It is a form of untouchability,says Justice Chandrachud

FREEDOM TO PRAY A EDITORIALKERALA HAILS VERDICT A PAGE 11‘GHOST OF NARASU’ A PAGE 11CONTINUED ON A PAGE 10