Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
On the sixth day of the hearing of Sabarimala Temple entry case, Senior Counsel K. Radhakrishnan questioned the intention of the petitioner. The petition was against the restriction imposed on the menstruating women between the age of 10 to 50 years from entering the pilgrimage. He was appearing on behalf of the Pandalam Royal Family, in his arguments he stated that the petitioner is attacking the Hindu beliefs and practices. He contended that the petitioner cannot be referred as the devotee of Lord Ayyappa by bringing such an action. According to him the petition is purely a publicity stunt and such kind of petitions must be dealt with stricter laws. He further submitted that the impugned Rule 3 (b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules was a new development, the rule of restricting menstruating women was prevailing since the establishment of the temple.
He contended that under Article 25(1) of the Indian Constitution everyone has the right to preach their religion subject to the morality. To this the counsel submits that the world morality be referred as public morality not as constitutional morality. He mentioned that the scope of power of the State under Article 25(2) is confined to secularism only. The counsel mentioned that one of the belief prevailing in Lord Ayyappa temple is that the before entering into the temple a devotee had to suffer 41 day penance, according to the medical issues women cannot survive through it.
Senior Counsel V. Giri, appearing for arch-priest of the Sabarimala Temple, emphasised that idol worship is an essential part of Hindu religion. He submitted that once the idol is placed, it is infused with life, therefore each idol possess a unique nature and every temple has rituals according to it. Under Article 25(1) devotee are under an obligation to accept such nature of the deity and respect those rituals, hence devotee must accept Lord Ayyappa in his ‘Naishtika Brahmacharya’ form. He remarked that the whole idea behind going to a temple is to strengthen one’s faith and not to criticise the beliefs that were already prevailing. He referred a decision rendered by Kerala HC in S. Mahendran v. Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board, it was stated that ban on the entry of women is a matter that has to be decided by the ‘Thanthri’ as it is a religious and spiritual matter.
Advocate Sai Deepak, appearing for intervenor organisation ‘people for dharma’ asserted that a deity is a legal entity, therefore it has rights under Article 21,25 and 26. He submitted that Lord Ayyappa has a right under Article 21 to maintain its perpetual celibate status. He argued that the entry of women is restricted due to the belief of impurities that is carried by the menstruation. He referred an example of Khamakhya temple of Assam, where the process of menstruation is celebrated, the deity is referred as ‘The Bleeding Goddess’. The submission made by him was that worshipper cannot claim rights in the customs.
To this Justice Chandrachud stated even though customs and rituals are essential part of Hindu religion, but they cannot be used as a weapon to discrimination. CJI Dipak Misra stated that on the name of religion discrimination cannot be done, as it is violation of fundamental rights of the citizens.
Senior Counsel Kailashnath Pillai requested the court to not decide the matter strictly on Kelson’s pure theory of law. He submitted that ignorance of rituals will result in disputes just like Ram Janambhumi-Babri Masjid controversy.
86540
103860
630
114
59824