Sabarimala | Visit Of Fertile Women Antithetical To Deity's Identity; They Can Visit Other Ayyappa Temples : TDB To Supreme Court

During the Sabarimala Reference hearing, the Travancore Devaswom Board told the Supreme Court that excluding the category of menstruating women aged 10- 50 years from visiting the Sabarimala Temple was within the reasonable classification test.

Senior Advocate AM Singhvi, made submissions for the Board before the 9-judge bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justice BV Nagarathna, Justice MM Sundresh, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice Aravind Kumar, Justice Augustine George Masih, Justice Prasanna B Varale, Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.

Notably, in 2018, the 5-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court permitted entry of women of all age groups to the Sabarimala temple, holding that 'devotion cannot be subjected to gender discrimination'.

Singhvi explained that the Sabarimala Temple is believed to be the only place where Lord Ayyappa is worshipped as the 'Naishtika Brahmachari' of the highest order, with strong beliefs in celibacy. He said :

"Lord Ayyappa, I am told, has about 1,000 temples in India. The only sole temple of Lord Ayyappa, which is in one form as a Naishtika Brahmachari(eternal celibate), is in Sabarimala. The very foundation of the fame and prowesss of this lord is in the form of Naishtika Nrahmachari, the only reason why people revere him is because he eschewed all forms of Grahastha Ashram and has adopted penance of a very high order, which includes celebacy and self-denial completely to an extreme form that is why when you go up, you have to do vratam (40 days)."

He submitted that this specific classification of women aged 10-50 years fell within the reasonable nexus between the rule to bar such a category of women and the objective, which is the reverence of celibate beliefs of the Lord itself.

"Now, if we relate it to (Article) 14, there is no exclusion. Females below 10 and above 50 are allowed. It's not gender per se. Within a band of 10 to 50... this exclusion of supposedly fertile females has a direct nexus with the object and identity and manifestation of the deity; it is a valid classification- that's the legal argument when it goes to the facts."

"The validity of the classification between women below 10 years versus women between 10 and 50 has to be judged as per what we are discussing. We are not discussing a toy shop or a restaurant ....he is my lords, a celibate, an eternal bharmacharya who forbids all forms of grahast ashram, chief of which is celibacy. " Singhvi elaborated further.

Singhvi further posed that, considering the specific belief attached to the Sabarimala Temple, why should women compulsorily claim their right to visit the specific temple, apart from 999 other temples of Lord Ayyappa, where women are allowed.

"It is assumed that fertile women of this age would be antithetical to the very manifestation and existence of the identity of the deity. These women can certainly visit Lord Ayyappa in 999 other temples if they are so concerned in a PIL. Why should they want to visit just one temple?"

"So when applying the tests under Article 17, 14 etc, the exclusion has a proper, valid and genuine nexus."

At this juncture, Justice Varale cautioned Singhvi, " By questioning why out of 999, they want to go to this temple, would be a legal farce?"

Singhvi clarified that it was not his case to argue that women should visit the remaining 999 temples; instead, what he is stressing is that the principle of reasonable classification would correctly apply to the present facts, considering the celibate beliefs of the deity in question.

" You all have equal access to Lord Ayyappa in other 999 temples, that's all that I am saying."

He further added that the religious belief that Lord Ayyappa is the highest form of Bhramachari could not be questioned through a PIL.

On April 7, SG Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union, also submitted before a 9-judge bench that the 2018 Sabarimala ruling requires reconsideration and reversal on legal grounds. He said that it should be declared as wrong law.

The hearing will continue tomorrow.

Case Details : KANTARU RAJEEVARU Versus INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION THR.ITS GENERAL SECRETARY MS. BHAKTI PASRIJA AND ORS., R.P.(C) No. 3358/2018 in W.P.(C) No. 373/2006

Also from today's hearing : Sabarimala Reference | Travancore Devaswom Board Disagrees With Nair Service Society's Argument On Articles 25(2)(b) & 26(b)

Sabarimala Reference | Can't Hollow Out Religion In The Name Of Social Reform, Supreme Court Says In Hearing

Difficult To Declare Belief Of Millions Wrong : Supreme Court In Sabarimala Reference Hearing