Was It Correct To Adjudicate On A Religious Matter!

On Sabarimala, the Supreme Court finds itself in the middle of a debate on whether it was correct to adjudicate on a religious matter.

- Soni Mishra

On September 28, the Supreme Court lifted a long-standing ban on women in the age group of 10 to 50 from entering the Sabarimala shrine in Kerala. The court’s 4:1 verdict was meant to open the gates of the hill abode of Lord Ayyappa to all women.

The gates of the shrine have opened thrice after the judgment was pronounced, but no woman between the ages of 10 and 50 has been able to enter the temple as Kerala is shaken by widespread protests against the judgment. Sabarimala resembles a war zone amidst a stand-off between angry devotees opposing the implementation of the judgment and the police.

The judgment has evoked strong emotions and violent reactions, and created a political divide. And, the Supreme Court finds itself in the middle of a debate on whether it was correct for it to adjudicate on a matter that belongs to the realm of religious belief. As many as 49 review petitions have been filed before the court, which show the extent of popular opposition to its ruling.

The majority verdict found the ban on women a violation of their fundamental right to religion and worship as enshrined under Article 25 of the Constitution. It termed the restriction a violation of women’s right to equality. The verdict noted that the exclusion of women, which was based on certain physiological factors, placed them in a position of subordination, and perpetuated patriarchy.