Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
In an unprecedented move, the Travancore Devasome Board(TDB) which is in charge of the management of Sabrimala temple, took a U turn from its earlier stand by supporting the earlier judgement of the Court. The senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, who was appearing on behalf of TDB stated that it has been high time that a particular class cannot be discriminated on the grounds of “biological attributes”.
The board was earlier in opposition to the entry of women into the shrine and it also in opposition to the PIL by the Indian Young Association stating that the celibate character of Lord Ayyappa at the Sabrimala temple and this unique feature was protected under the Constitution.
A five-judge constitution bench headed by the Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi started the hearing of 55 review petitions on its September 28, 2018 judgement. The arguments started with the Senior Counsel K Parasan, who was appearing for the Nair Service Society, stating the fact that ‘religious places’ are conspicuous by their absence in Article 15(2) of the Constitution, which provides for the right of all persons to access public places without any discrimination. He even submitted that the judgement erroneously imported this concept in the present case. “Untouchability will apply only if someone is treated less than human being”, he said. The exclusion of women between the age of 10-50 is not based on caste, but rather on the gender of the deity, which is that of “naisthika brahmachari”, a permanent celibate. But this was interjected by Justice Nariman, who stated that the judgement was not based on Article 17 alone.
Next was the turn of V Giri, senior counsel appearing for the thanthri, chief priest of the temple. Thantri is regarded as the father of the deity, and has special rights to preserve the essential character of the deity. He contradicted Parasaran’s arguments stating that the practice was not based on the chaste, but on the character of the deity.
Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the former Chairman of Travancore Devaswom Board, Prayar Gopalakrishnan started arguments. He stated that the Court erred in holding that a practice that has no universal application can be regarded as essential practice.
“In a diverse religion like Hinduism, one cannot look for universality. This test applied in the judgement is not correct”, he said. In Hinduism gods are worshipped in various forms and manifestations and in the similar manner the worshipping of Lord Ayyapa is a particular manner.
The Kerela Government, however, opposed the review petition, saying that there is no need for re-examining the top court’s verdict. The state government said that ban on women entry is not a part of “essential practice of Hinduism”, which is protected under the Constitution of India. “Social harmony will ultimately prevail in the state” the state government told the Supreme Court.
86540
103860
630
114
59824