Professional Documents
Culture Documents
belief
blog.forumias.com /sabarimala-temple-case-gender-equality-v-religious-belief/
Context
Prohibition of women’s entry to shrines solely on the basis of womanhood is derogatory to women and
their fundamental rights.
Authorities must uphold a stern approach towards gender equality
Sabarimala is the second largest seasonal pilgrimage after the Islamic holy site of Mecca in Saudi Arabia.
An estimated 3.5 crore Hindu pilgrims visited the shrine last year
In 1991, the Kerala high court upheld the ban in the S.Mahendran vs the Secretary, Travancore case and
directed the Devasom Board to implement it.
The India Young Lawyers Association revived the issue in Supreme Court through a PIL contending that
Rule 3(b) violates constitutional guarantees of equality, non-discrimination and religious freedom (Articles
14, 15 and 25).
The Supreme Court recently indicated that it will refer the Sabarimala temple entry restriction on women
of a certain age to a Constitution Bench.
The Supreme Court on Friday referred to its constitution bench on October 20th 2017, the matter
pertaining to the ban on entry of women at Sabarimala.
Preventing women’s entry to the Sabarimala temple with an irrational and obsolete notion of “purity”
offends the equality clauses in the Constitution.
It denotes a patriarchal and partisan approach.
The entry prohibition takes away the woman’s right against discrimination guaranteed under Article 15(1)
of the Constitution.
It further curtails the religious freedom assured by Article 25(1).
Prohibition of women’s entry to the shrine is done on the basis of womanhood and the biological features
associated with womanhood, which Article 51A (e) aims to renounce.
What are the various Articles guaranteeing religious and gender equality?
1/3
Article 15 of the Indian Constitution
Article 15 of Indian Constitution prohibits any discrimination done on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex
or place of birth.
It is important to note that Article 15 of the Indian constitution states that no person shall be discriminated
on the basis of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.
Every person shall have equal access to public places like public parks, museums, wells, bathing ghats
and temples etc.
Special provisions may be made for the advancements of any socially or educationally backward class
or scheduled castes or scheduled tribes.
Violation of Article 25
This constitutional provision does not give individuals the right to conduct animal sacrifice and perform
religious rituals on a busy street or public place that causes inconvenience to others.
Though the right to perform rituals is protected under this Article, yet the state retains the power to
formulate laws to regulate “economic, financial, political.
The rights available to woman (ladies) in India can be classified into two categories, namely as
constitutional rights and legal rights.
The constitutional rights are those which are provided in the various provisions of the constitution.
The legal rights, on the other hand, are those which are provided in the various laws (acts) of the
Parliament and the State Legislatures.
The rights and safeguards enshrined in the constitution for women in India are listed below:
The state shall not discriminate against any citizen of India on the ground of sex [Article 15(1)].
It shall be the duty of every citizen of India to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women
[Article 51-A(e)].
Freedom to manage religious affairs subject to public order, morality and health, every religious
denomination or any section thereof shall have the right
to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes;
to manage its own affairs in matters of religion;
to own and acquire movable and immovable property; and
to administer such property in accordance with law
2/3
What is the suggested way ahead?
Article 25(2)(b) enables the state “(to provide) for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu
religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of the Hindus.”
While delivering its judgment, the Supreme Court should keep in mind that none among the devotees of
Sabarimala have come to court demanding changed rules.
It is essential to prevent monopolization of religious rights by a few under the guise of management of
religious institutions.
3/3