Ending an age-old ban on the entry of women between 10 and 50 years, Supreme Court passed a verdict that women of all ages can enter the Sabarimala temple in Kerala.
“The practice of age restriction on women entry to Sabrimala temple can’t be treated as an essential religious practice” said the court in a majority four-one judgment. The only judge who dissented on the five-judge constitution bench was Justice Indu Malhotra.
Here are the main highlights:
- Right to worship is given to all devotees and there cannot be any discrimination on the basis of gender.
- The practice of barring women in age group of 10-50 to enter into the temple is a violation of constitutional principles.
- CJI Misra & Justice AM Kharnwilkar said devotion cannot be subjected to gender discrimination.
- Justice Chandrachud said any custom or religious practice if violates the dignity of women by denying them entry due to her physiology is unconstitutional. He further added that the popular notion about morality can be offensive to the dignity of others and exclusion of women because she menstruates is utterly unconstitutional.
- Justice Chandrachud held that exclusion of women is violative of the right to liberty, dignity, and equality and said banning women of a particular age group is not the essential practice of religion.
Though many people shared their happiness about the judgment on the social media, some found it as an attack on religious sentiments:
My minor crush on the Supreme Court could become major at this rate 🙂 Thank you . Menstruating Women can no longer be barred from #Sabarimala – Bleeding is not a blot. #StopSexism #Period. #SabarimalaVerdict p.s curious dissent by lone female judge on bench https://t.co/GAj2jA6e0T
— barkha dutt (@BDUTT) September 28, 2018
Women can enter the #Sabarimala temple. :Supreme Court
— Faye DSouza (@fayedsouza) September 28, 2018
women have menstrual fluids flowing every month for 4-5 days. Men can have sperm oozing everyday everytime and at will.
Let us ban all men in #Sabarimala #SabarimalaVerdict .
— harish iyer (@hiyer) September 28, 2018
Is anyone filing a petition in the court for temples where entry of men is banned ?
Sure not. Men understand everything isn’t about Gender discrimination. They follow rules the way they are without feeling oppressed.#Sabarimala
— Deepika Bhardwaj (@DeepikaBhardwaj) September 28, 2018
#SabarimalaVerdict | “Devotion cannot be subjected to discrimination,” said the top court today in a majority four-one judgement, ending ban on the entry of women between 10 and 50 years in Kerala’s renowned #Sabarimala temple.
Read more here: https://t.co/zeiDJyO64R pic.twitter.com/fRYIiWgT76
— NDTV (@ndtv) September 28, 2018
➡️”Right to worship is given to all devotees and there can be no discrimination on the basis of gender “: Justice Misra
➡️”Women aren’t lesser children of god “Justice Chandrachud
India moves one more step ahead towards gender equality ! Kudos to SC, Again ! #Sabarimala
— Jayant Patil (@Jayant_R_Patil) September 28, 2018
Whereas, some felt the judgment was based on pseudo-feminism and hurt the religious sentiments:
#Sabarimala verdict proves the Indian “secular” State is worse than Aurangzeb. The deracinated colonial court wants to destroy the diversity and beauty of Hindu traditions, which make a place for all—for women, for men, even third genders. It doesn’t have to be the *same* place.
— Sankrant Sanu सानु (@sankrant) September 28, 2018
The only judge who gave judgement against the entry women in #Sabarimala is a woman. Talks a lot about how some genuine women view an issue and how men who are living under the illusion of pseudo-feminism view an issue in western lens. #SabarimalaVerdict
— Saiganesh (@im_saiganesh) September 28, 2018
In a verdict which only strengthens the concept of ‘gender equality’, the Supreme Court stated that biological reasons should not be considered for the continuation of an age-old tradition. And, we completely agree with the Supreme Court!
You Might Also Like:
Like this story? Have something to share? Write to us: [email protected], or connect with us on Facebook.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this post are the personal views of the author. They do not necessarily reflect the views of I for Her. Authors are responsible for any omissions or errors. And, I for Her does not assume any liability or responsibility for them