Not Exclusion But Allowing Women To Temple As A Devotee Is The Essential Practice Of Hindu Religion : CJI Dipak Misra [Read Judgment]

“In no scenario, it can be said that exclusion of women of any age group could be regarded as an essential practice of Hindu religion and on the contrary, it is an essential part of the Hindu religion to allow Hindu women to enter into a temple as devotees and followers of Hindu religion and offer their prayers to the deity. In the absence of any scriptural or textual evidence, we cannot accord to the exclusionary practice followed at the Sabarimala temple the status of an essential practice of Hindu religion.”The Supreme Court has thrown open the Sabarimala Temple to all woman of all age groups. CJI Dipak Misra, Justice RF Nariman, Justice DY Chandrachud wrote separate judgments, but all held that woman should not be denied entry to the temple, which is the shrine of Celibate God Ayyappa. Interestingly, the lone woman in the bench, Justice Indu Malhotra, is the sole dissenter to the majority judgment.Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra observed that exclusionary practice (denial of entry to women in Sabarimala) is neither an essential nor an integral part of the Hindu religion without which Hindu religion, of which the devotees of Lord Ayyappa are followers, will not survive.In short, the CJI holds that devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a separate religious denomination. He also observed that the right guaranteed under Article 25(1) has nothing to do with gender or, for that matter, certain physiological factors specifically attributable to women and the denial of entry to the temple denudes them of their right to worship.More than half of the 95-page judgment deals with submissions of the parties, interveners, Devaswom Board, State and amicus curiae Raju Ramchandran and K Ramamoorthy. The following are some observations made by CJI in the judgment with which Justice AM Khanwilkar also concurs.Mere observance of certain practices, even though from a long time, does not make it a distinct religion on that accountReferring to Shirur Mutt case, the CJI observed that the most important condition for a religious denomination is that the collection of individuals ought to have a system of beliefs or doctrines which they regard as conducive to their spiritual well-being. He observed that there is nothing on record to show that the devotees of Lord Ayyappa have any common religious tenets peculiar to themselves, which they regard as conducive to their spiritual well-being, other than those which are common to the Hindu religion. Therefore, the devotees of Lord Ayyappa are just Hindus and do not constitute a separate religious denomination. For a religious denomination, there must be new methodology provided for a religion, the CJI said.It is an essential part of the Hindu religion to allow woman devotees to offer their prayers to the deityThe CJI also observed that, by allowing women to enter into the Sabarimala temple for offering prayers, it cannot be imagined that the nature of Hindu religion would be fundamentally altered or changed in any manner.CJI Misra remarked: “In no scenario, it can be said that exclusion of women of any age group could be regarded as an essential practice of Hindu religion and on the contrary, it is an essential part of the Hindu religion to allow Hindu women to enter into a temple as devotees and followers of Hindu religion and offer their prayers to the deity. In the absence of any scriptural or textual evidence, we cannot accord to the exclusionary practice followed at the Sabarimala temple the status of an essential practice of Hindu religion.”Alterable parts or practices are definitely not the 'core' of religionThe court also observed that the Devaswom Board had accepted before the high court that female worshippers of the age group of 10 to 50 years used to visit the temple and conducted poojas in every month for five days for the first rice feeding ceremony of their children. It had also taken a stand that restriction of entry for women was only during Mandalam, Makaravilakku and Vishu days.Taking these and other submissions into account, the CJI observed: “Nobody can say that essential part or practice of one's religion has changed from a particular date or by an event. Such alterable parts or practices are definitely not the 'core' of religion where the belief is based and religion is founded upon. It could only be treated as mere embellishments to the non-essential part or practices.”These are the conclusions in the judgment. Important points are highlighted for quick reading. In view of the law laid down by this Court in Shirur Mutt (supra) and S.P. Mittal (supra), the devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a separate religious denomination. They do not have common religious tenets peculiar to themselves, which they regard as conducive to their spiritual well-being, other than those which are common to the Hindu Lord Ayyappa are exclusively Hindus and do not constitute a separate religious denomination. Article 25(1), by employing the expression 'all persons',...

Not Exclusion But Allowing Women To Temple As A Devotee Is The Essential Practice Of Hindu Religion : CJI Dipak Misra [Read Judgment]

Ashok Kini

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Not Exclusion But Allowing Women To Temple As A Devotee Is The Essential Practice Of Hindu Religion : CJI Dipak Misra [Read Judgment]

Ashok Kini

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers