Exclusion of women because she menstruates unconstitutional: What SC said while delivering Sabarimala verdict

Putting an end to age-old customs, Supreme Court allowed women of all ages to enter at Kerala’s Sabarimala temple. The apex court agreed to the decision with 4:1 majority with Justice Indu Malhotra, only one woman judge in the five-judge bench, gave a dissenting judgment. Earlier, the practice of not allowing women aged between 10 to 50, was violating their fundamental right of pray.

It was said that women from menstrual age aren’t allowed to enter the temple as its presiding deity, Lord Ayyappa, is considered to be a celibate. Here, we see some takeaways from today’s Judgment on Sabarimala

  • Banning entry of women to shrine is gender discrimination: CJI Dipak Misra
  • Patriarchal notion cannot be allowed to trump equality in devotion: CJI
  • Sabarimala Temple practice violates rights of Hindu women: CJI
  • Devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute separate denomination: CJI
  • Practice of exclusion of women of 10-50 age group cannot be regarded as essential religious practice: CJI
  • Sabarimala temple custom barring women of 10-50 age is not backed by Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution: CJI Nariman
  • Religion cannot be used as cover to deny rights of worship to women. It is also against human dignity: CJI Chnadrachud
  • Prohibition on women is due to non-religious reasons and it is a grim shadow of discrimination going on for centuries: Justice Chandrachud
  • Exclusion of women because she menstruates is utterly unconstitutional, says Chandrachud
  • Exclusion of women is violative of right to liberty, dignity and equality: Chandrachud
  • Issues which have deep religious connotation should not be tinkered with to maintain secular atmosphere in the country, says Indu Malhotra
  • It is not for courts to determine which religious practices are to be struck down except in issues of social evil like ‘Sati’: Malhotra
  • Notions of rationality cannot be brought into matters of religion: Indu Malhotra
  • It is not for court to interfere in religious practices even if it appears discriminatory: Malhotra
  • India has diverse religious practices and constitutional morality would allow anyone to profess a religion they believe: Malhotra

(For all the latest News, Mumbai, Entertainment, Cricket, Business and Featured News updates, visit Free Press Journal. Also, follow us on Twitter and Instagram and do like our Facebook page for continuous updates on the go)

Free Press Journal