The controversy around the entry to Sabarimala temple refuses to die down. Parallel proceedings are going on in the Supreme Court and in the Kerala High Court. On 13th November 2018, the Supreme Court heard the slew of review petitions filed against its very own judgment allowing entry of women into the temple, delivered on 28th September 2018 (the Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors vs Union of India & Anr), and listed them for hearing in the open court in January, 2019. Importantly, the Court clarified that there was no stay on the original judgment. Meanwhile, many petitions are presently pending in the Kerala High Court, with both sides agitating against each other on the implementation of the Supreme Court order.
The High Court firstly rejected a petition to not implement the decision of the Supreme Court. The petitioners argued that the State had misunderstood the impact of the judgment. It was only declatory and not mandatory, the State should not have immediately implemented the decision hastily, converting the temple into a ‘warzone’. The Court dismissed the petition observing that the petitioners, a national organisation of Ayyappa devotees, had filed a similar petition in the Supreme Court, which had been dismissed and that they have sought the review of the same, which is yet to be heard. The High Court cannot look into the correctness of a Supreme Court decision, apart from the fact that the petitioners could not pursue two remedies at the same time.
Another petition was filed by the President of the Indic Collective, a trust formed to preserve the Indian traditions, in the High Court alleging that the Government of Kerala in the guise of implementing the judgment was, in fact, interfering with the functions of the Travancore Devaswom Board, who was in-charge of the administration of the temple, by deploying around 5000 police personnel. These allegations were vehemently refuted by the State Government who stated that the security of the pilgrims was the foremost concern of the Government, and could not be compromised in any manner. In another case, the High Court has taken suo motu cognisance of the violence that took place at Sabarimala on 5th November 2018, after the temple was opened for sometime.
In all these cases, what is evident is the sheer reluctance of the Devaswom Board to comply with the Supreme Court judgment as well as the BJP fishing in troubled waters. It is by now quite clear that the protests at the Sabarimala temple over the last almost two months have been fueled by the rightwing groups, who are trying to use the issue to whip up hysteria against the PM. Vijayan led Left Front Government in Kerala.
The temple, which had opened on 17th October 2018, witnessed extremely violent protests by this mob of rioters, who blocked any woman who was trying to enter the temple. The sheer vitrolic hate and intimidation as well as physicial assaults that women devotees were subject to put any civilised country to shame. The question of faith has now been completely twisted by the rightwing hate mongers, who are openly making extremely disrespecting and distasteful statements against the Supreme Court, amounting to contempt of court, and publicly calling for violence against women. It is such hypocracy that a government that claims to run ‘Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao’ andolan would actively instigate violence and assault against the women as well as openly violating the Supreme Court’s order.
Compared to other landmark decisions that were delivered in the last week of former Chief Justice Dipak Misra’s tenure in September 2018, ie, decriminalisation of homosexuality in Navtej Johar vs Union of India, and decriminalisation of adultery in Joseph Shine vs Union of India, it is the verdict in the Sabarimala case, which has aroused the most number of protests. Even at the time of arguments in the Supreme Court, arguments in the Sabarimala matter went on for few weeks, while the other two got over quite quickly, and without much opposition. This makes one wonder what actually makes this case different or distinct from the other two cases.
It could be that the issues of adultery and homosexuality pertained to criminal laws, obviously linked to archaic moral notions, the case of Sabarimala is an issue of faith and not so much a moral tale. At the same time, the heart of the prohibition on the entry of women into Sabarimala was that of menstruation, which was considered a symbol of impurity, and to be shunned. Irrespective of the fact that the current protests against the Supreme Court judgment have been orchestrated by the BJP-led rightwing groups, there is some truth in the allegation that the judgment might have irked some general Ayyappa devotees too, who truly believe that Lord Ayyappa was a celibate.
Be that as it may, the issue is whether religious beliefs can trump over the constitutional values, and the answer is a resounding no from the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court. The Constitution of India is the only legal and moral paradigm on which the rights are to be evaluated. As it is said, the arc of justice only moves forward, and when the ‘ghost of Narasu Appa’ been exorcised, there is no question of hackneyed patriarchal beliefs having any place in the 21st century India.
Amritananda Chakravorty is a freelance journalist. Views are personal.
