Women Who Are True Devotees Of Lord Ayyappa Won't Go To Sabarimala Till They Attain 50 Years : Supreme Court

During the hearing of the Sabarimala reference, the Supreme Court on Wednesday orally commented that women, who are true devotees of Lord Ayyappa, would not go to the Sabarimala temple till they attain the age of 50 years.

On the tenth day of the hearing of the reference, the 9-judge bench was hearing the arguments of Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, who represented two women, who had entered the Sabarimala temple pursuant to the 2018 judgment which declared the right of women of all age groups to enter the hill shrine.

Jaising, who argued that the exclusion of women was a form of 'untouchability', which is proscribed by Article 17, told the bench that after the women entered the temple, a purification ceremony was done. The concept that the entry of women caused pollution and defilement of the shrine is a form of untouchability, she argued.

Jaising told the bench that Bindu, one of the woman who visited the temple, was aged 40 years at the time. She added that Bindu had visited the temple earlier at the age of 11.  At this point, Justice Nagarathna asked, "What did she do between 10 to 50?", implying why she never attempted to visit the temple before if she was a genuine devotee.

Jaising said that she was studying law and working as a law teacher. "So suddenly, one morning, you wake up, and you decide to go?" Justice Aravind Kumar asked. Jaising replied, "We all wake up with judgments of this court... nothing new about it."

The bench asked why these women decided to visit the temple, soon after the 2018 judgment, if they had never cared to visit it earlier.  

"Is she a devotee?" Justice Nagarathna asked. "I will answer that question," Jaising replied. "Tough question?" Justice Nagarathna asked again.

Jaising paused for a while and said, "I will answer that question. If I say for introspection, will that satisfy the Court?"

"Someone who is not a devotee goes there?" Justice Nagarathna asked. "Introspection is the heart of the religion...we all search for an answer for the eternal question, who am I", Jaising replied.

"We respect introspection, but it does not come in one day," Justice Nagarathna said.  "If I say she went as an act of conscience, will it satisfy the Court?" Jaising replied.

"True devotees between the age of 10 and 50 years stay at home and don't go," Justice Nagarathna said.

Justice Amanullah then told Jaising, "There can be one point in your favour. No body knows if they will live till 50...so it can be a permanent disability also."

Justice Nagarathna said that in Hinduism, there is a concept of defilement after birth and death for a certain period, during which people avoid temple visits. Tomorrow, someone will file a petition claiming the right to visit the temple during that period also, the Judge commented.

Jaising contended that there was no historic practice of women being excluded from the Sabarimala temple. She said that there are records of the Queen of Travancore visiting the temple for the rice-feeding ceremony of her child, when she was below the age of 50 years. She stated that the affidavit filed by the Thantri in the Kerala High Court clearly stated this fact.

Jaising also narrated her personal experience of witnessing menstrual discrimination in her family during her younger days. She said that she was not allowed to touch her mother during her periods. She said that in her family, women were not allowed to go near the funeral pyres. But now, that custom has gone.

"What is the basis of the restriction. The basis is that I am considered polluted during this period, that I will defile if I go in. This applies to a large part of my life. Why should I be told to stop living during that period?" Jaising asked. She said that she personally felt like a victim of untouchability when she was discriminated on the basis of menstruation.

"My perception is this. I know how I feel when I am not allowed to enter. I know my feelings. I know when I was not allowed to touch my mother, I knew what I felt....In my family, I was not allowed to touch my mother for one week. She was not allowed to eat at the table with us. Anyway, it is gone, it is part of history. I do not want to lament about it. That phase of my life is over..." Jaising said.

Justice Nagarathna said that it need not be seen as pollution or defilement in the sense of untouchability. During a previous hearing as well, Justice Nagarathna had expressed reservations about applying Article 17 in the Sabarimala case.

Jaising also argued today that 'morality' under Articles 25 and 26 cannot be interpreted as 'public morality', since public morality can be based on prejudices. She advocated the adoption of the norms of Constitutional morality. She also emphasised that the Constitution was written for individuals, and the individual's fundamental rights cannot be subjugated to group rights.

Live updates posted from today's hearing can be found here.

Also from today's hearing - 'We Can't Be Part Of Annihilation Of Religion; Let's Not Open Age Old Customs' : Supreme Court In Sabarimala Reference Hearing