Sabarimala Women's Entry [Day-1] Restrictions On Entry Of Women Nowhere Connected With Religious Practices In The Temple, Submits Petitioner [Read Written Submissions]

In the written submissions, the petitioner submitted that the restriction on the entry of women in the Sabarimala temple is nowhere connected with the religious practices performed there.The Supreme Court five-judge bench on Tuesday commenced hearing on the challenge to the constitutionality of the ban on entry of women in the historic Sabarimala Temple.Opening the case of the petitioners, Advocate R. K. Gupta submitted that it has been an age-old practice to restrict the access of the temple to menstruating women between the age of 10 and 50 years.[Breaking] Entry Of Women To Sabarimala Temple: SC Refers The Matter To Constitution Bench [Read Judgment]He drew the attention of the bench to the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala in S. Mahendran v. The Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board, upholding the practice of banning the entry of women above the age of 10 and below the age of 50 to trek the holy hills of Sabarimala for the pilgrimage.Since the present case has arisen out of 800 centuries-old tradition of prohibiting entry of women during puberty into a Lord Ayyappan Temple, in order to appreciate the legal & constitutional dimension of this tradition, Mr. Gupta sought to briefly trace the history of the temple, in context of such discrimination preached and practiced against women in all the religions of the world, particularly, the Hindu religion, on account of their physiological character related to the monthly cycle of menstruation – a productive system indispensable for evolution of man.However, the bench invited the counsel to discuss the order dated October 13, 2017, referring the matter for consideration by a constitution bench- the basis of the reference and the issues framed.After a half hour long session, the hearing was adjourned to Wednesday.In his written submissions to the court, Mr. Gupta has contended that the Sabarimala Temple is not a separate religious denomination for the purpose of Article 26 for the following reasons:(i) The religious practices performed in Sabarimala Temple at the time of ‘Puja and other religious ceremonies are not distinct and are akin to any other practice performed in any Hindu Temple.(ii) It does not have its separate administration but is administered through statutory Board constituted under Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950.(iii) It is getting State funding out of Consolidated Fund of Kerela under Article 290-A of the Constitution.(iv) As per section 29A of Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, Kerala Public Service Commission appoints officers on the posts of Devaswom Administrative Service through whom Devaswom Board administrates these hundreds of Devaswom.(v) Section 29(3A) of Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, the Devaswom Commissioner is required to submit reports to the Government, once in three months, with respect to the working of the Board.".(vi) There is no exclusive follower of this temple except general Hindu followers visiting any Hindu temple. Mere attraction of some people for some temple does not make it a separate & distinct religious denomination.INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO WORSHIP V. DENOMINATIONAL RIGHT TO MANAGE ITS RELIGIOUS AFFAIRSIn this behalf, reliance has been placed on the seven-judge Bench of the apex court in the Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Shri Lakhshmindra ThirthaSwamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt.“While giving freedom under clauses (a) & (b) of Article 26, this Hon’ble Court in Shirur Mutt case made it clear that what is protected is the essence of ‘practice’ practiced by a religious denomination. Thus, before any religious practice is examined on the touchstone of constitutional principles, it is submitted that one has to be firstly satisfied whether the said practice is in pith and substance really the ‘essence’ of said religion. Therefore, in the Sri Shirur Mutt case, this Hon’ble Court has made it clear that what is protected under Article 26(b) is only the ‘essential part’ of religion”, it has been argued.Further, it has been advanced, in the light of the observations of another seven-judge bench in DurgahCommittee, Ajmer v. Syed Hussain Ali, that “even practices, though religious, may have sprung from merely superstitious beliefs and may, in that sense, be extraneous and unessential accretions to religion itself. Unless such practices are found to constitute an essential and integral part of a religion, their claim for the protection under Art. 26 may have to be carefully scrutinised. In other words, the protection must be confined to such religious practices as are an essential and an integral part of it and no other.”WHETHER ENTRY TO TEMPLE IS THE ESSENCE OF HINDU RELIGIONIt is the position of the petitioners that the restriction on the entry of women in the Sabarimala temple is nowhere connected with the religious practices performed there. The question of it being the essence of the said religious denomination does ...

Sabarimala Women's Entry [Day-1] Restrictions On Entry Of Women Nowhere Connected With Religious Practices In The Temple, Submits Petitioner [Read Written Submissions]

Mehal Jain

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Mehal Jain

Sabarimala Women's Entry [Day-1] Restrictions On Entry Of Women Nowhere Connected With Religious Practices In The Temple, Submits Petitioner [Read Written Submissions]

Mehal Jain

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Mehal Jain

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers