New Delhi: If God does not discriminate between men and women, why should discrimination exist in temples, the Supreme Court asked on Friday as it said it would examine the issue of entry ban on women of menstrual age in the historic Sabarimala temple on the basis of constitutional parameters.
‘‘We are not taking a narrow view. We want to strike a constitutional balance between the right to equality and the right to religious practice. The temple is a religious phenomenon and its functions must come within parameters,” the court said.
It is hearing a petition challenging the ban on women between 10 and 50 entering the ancient temple dedicated to Lord Ayyappa.
The temple board lawyer KK Venugopal argued the practice was in place for 1000 years, so why dig it up now? “The whole of Sabarimala hill is sanctified and women can’t enter,” he said. The temple claims that women who menstruate are impure and must not be given access to the hilltop shrine.
The court, in turn, asked Venugopal to apprise it whether this practice was “intricately fundamental” to religious custom or practice and hence cannot be interfered with. The Bench also referred to the Bhagwad Gita and said that neither the ‘Vedas’, nor the ‘Upanishads,’ discriminate on grounds of gender. ‘‘Is spirituality a domain of only men: Are women incapable of spirituality?” the court demanded.
The judges also referred to a mythological story about ‘Sati Anusuyia’ who had turned Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh into kids and asked, “How can you stop the mother from entering the temple.”
Venugopal has sought six weeks time for filing evidence, including documents and ancient scriptures on the issue.
The bench also took note of Kerala government’s recent stand and termed it a “somersault” saying, “You have filed an affidavit by taking a diametrically opposite stand. We will test it also as to whether a State can take a somersault or U-turn”.
“A state or a party can always correct its earlier erroneous stand,” senior lawyer V Giri, appearing for Kerala, said.
The Kerala government, in its recent affidavit, has said that banning entry of women of menstrual age in the temple was a “matter of religion” and it was duty bound to “protect the right of these devotees”.
The bench, which has now posted the matter for a hearing in April, asked the lawyers that it will not allow any “sentimental and emotional” arguments. “But what about the spiritual arguments,” demanded advocate Indira Jaising.
However, the judges were adamant that no ‘individual philosophy’ will be allowed.
