As I pen down the column, I wish to start with the story of Sabri. As Lord Rama with Lord Lakshman were on their way to search for Sita Maiya, in the Western Ghats they were greeted by an old and crippled lady Sabri. Sabri was Dalit women who wanted to be engrossed in the world of shastras and unwilling to marry. She went to the Ashram of Matang Rishi, who further instructed her for a big task on the way. She was expected to show Lord Rama the way to Kishkinda. Sabri waited for years, with flowers and sweet palms selected out of sour which she herself tasted and kept for Lord Rama. As Lord Rama came, Sabri’s long wait was finally over.
Now:
The temple of Sabarimala is located in the state of Kerala. An act of anthropogenic orthodox partisanship delivered their prejudiced wish that “menstruating woman cannot enter Sabarimala Temple.
The question that rises is why?
Activists have advocated for this cause over time and there has been legal trials . The contemporary democratic state has an institutionalised judicial system in which courts protect the rule of law and occasionally fill in the gaps in policy that are either unintentionally left unaddressed by the legislature or are the result of misfortunes. However, in a society as deeply devoted to religion as India, the fact that judges of constitutional courts make decisions on questions of faith has long been a point of dispute. Such legal matters in the Indian context involve the intricate interactions between Articles 14, 25, and 26 of the Constitution. The extended discussion that follows when considering the principles of constitutional integrity overwhelms us when these Articles are compared.
Legal history of Sabarimala
A well-known temple in Kerala honouring Lord Ayyappa is the Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple. It was proposed in 1990 to limit the number of women who could enter the Temple who were between the ages of 10 and 50. The Kerala High Court, in a ruling in S. Mahendran v. The Secretary, Travancore (1993), limited their admittance on the grounds that the aforementioned exclusion was constitutional and reasonable, since it was a long-standing custom that had been in place since time immemorial.
Is it really constitutional?
What is the fault of menstruating women?
In 2006, a follow-up appeal was submitted in the public interest, challenging the constitutionality of Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules, 1965 Rule 3(b), which prohibits women from entering the temple. The state administration passed this regulation to control which Hindu groups might enter venues of public worship. According to the petition, the restriction on women’s admittance should be lifted because it goes beyond the authority granted by the Constitution. A Constitution Bench ruled in 2018 that women of any age might enter the Temple, citing the prohibition as a violation of Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees the basic right to freedom of religion.
The Supreme Court has to explicitly grant itself the authority to determine what qualifies as a “essential practice” within the context of religion and, as such, is protected by Article 25. The highest court came to the conclusion that it was not a necessary practice for Hindu women of menstruation age to be excluded from the Temple. Furthermore, the Court was constructive in ruling that the fact that women of menstrual age were not permitted to worship in the Temple simply because Lord Ayyappa was chaste according to sacred scriptures. This strategy of exclusion is similar to the untouchability that is prohibited by Article 17 of the Constitution.
The Sabarimala ruling significantly expands the definition of “life and liberty” under Article 21 and supports the social inclusion theory. With this ruling, the Court affirmed its role as the guardian of the constitutional conscience and its refusal to bow to popular morality or situational pressure.
In the conclusion I wish to leave the readers to contemplate, why despite a transforming judgement why cant menstruating woman still enter Sabarimala despite the highest court protecting their rights.
Yes Sabri also used to menstruate, then why?