ForumIAS announcing GS Foundation Program for UPSC CSE 2025-26 from 10th August. Click Here for more information.
Article:
- Writer is a former Judge of SC, and has discussed about the implication Sabarimala verdict.
Important Analysis:
- In Indian Young Lawyers Association vs. State of Kerala, the Supreme Court by a 4-1 majority held the prohibition of entry of women in Sabarimala temple of menstruating age is illegal and unconstitutional.
- In Author’s view, the Supreme Court Judgement will pave the way for litigation for other temple or places as well.
- However, in the opinion of writer, the majority judgement was incorrect because
- Right to equality in Article 14 had to be harmonized with the right of people under Article 25 to follow their own religious practices.
- Sabarimala devotees have constitutionally protected denominational rights, that they are entitled to prevent the entry of women.
- Constitution of India assure every religious denomination to manage its own affairs (Article 26).
- Court cannot impose its morality or rationality with respect to the form of worship of a deity
- Essentiality of a religious practice or custom had to be decided within the contours of that religion. Such as women of menstruating age would not be able to observe the 41-day period of abstinence before making a pilgrimage.
- Since India is a land of diverse faith, ban was a matter of personal faith.
- Constitutional Morality in a diverse society gave freedom to practice even illogical custom.
- In a secular polity, issues which are matters of deep religious faith and sentiment must not ordinarily be interfered with by courts.
- Writer has also noticed there are thousands of temples, mosques, and Gurdwaras in India, many with their own rituals and practices.
