Sabarimala: Worship in temples should be in sync with character of deity, SC told

New Delhi, Feb 06: The Supreme Court Tuesday has begun hearing in open court the pleas seeking review of its verdict which allowed entry of women of all age groups into Kerala's Sabarimala temple.

At the start of the hearing the Bench headed by Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi said that there are 54 review petitions in all in addition to 3 to 5 writs. The central issue is reconsideration of the judgment.

Also Read | Only 2 women entered Sabarimala temple, says Kerala govt in assembly

Opening arguments, senior counsel, K Parasaran said that there is an error on the face of record of the Sabarimala verdict. Article 15 (2) prohibits discrimination in access to public institutions of secular category and not of religious category. There were 3 failed attempts to amend Article 15 to include places of worship, he further said.

Appearing for the Sabarimala thanthri, senior advocate V Girl said that the thanthri is the father of the deity. Every deity has a character. The Sabarimala deity, unlike in another Ayyappa temples has a peculiar character of a Naishtika Brahmin.

Every devotee has a fundamental right to worship in a temple in a manner which is in sync with the character of the deity, Giri further added. Constitutional morality does not flow from a text. It was evolved in recent times. Exclusion of women of menstrual age is not based on immorality, but on the essential religious practice that the Sabarimala deity is a permanent celibate, he further added.

He further said that he agreed with the argument advanced by Parasaran that exclusion in Sabarimala is not based on untouchability. It is an essential religious practice that the deity is a celibate, which even women in the age group of 10 and 50 believe. The essential religious nature of the Sabarimala deity is affirmed, perpetuated everyday by the offerings, pujas conducted in the temple.

All this rests on this unique character of the deity. Exclusion of women of a certain age is nothing on moral or immoral, he also contended.

On September 28, a five-judge Constitution bench, headed by the then Chief Justice Dipak Misra, in 4:1 verdict had paved the way for entry of women of all ages into the Sabarimala temple saying the ban amounted to gender discrimination.

There are around 54 petitions seeking review of the judgement and they were filed following the recent violent protests in favour and against the verdict.

The top court had on October 9 declined an urgent hearing on the review plea filed by an association which had contended that the five-judge Constitution bench's verdict lifting the ban was "absolutely untenable and irrational".

A plea filed by the National Ayyappa Devotees Association (NADA), which has sought review of the verdict, had said: "The notion that the judgment under review is revolutionary, one which removes the stigma or the concept of dirt or pollution associated with menstruation, is unfounded.

"It is a judgment welcomed by hypocrites who were aspiring for media headlines. On the merits of the case, as well, the said judgment is absolutely untenable and irrational, if not perverse."

Besides the association, several other petitions, including one by the Nair Service Society (NSS), have been filed against the SC verdict.

The NSS had said in the plea that as the deity is a 'Naistika Brahmachari', females below the age of 10 and after the age of 50 years are eligible to worship him and there is no practice of excluding worship by females.

"Hence, the delay or wait for 40 years to worship cannot be considered as exclusionary and it is an error of law on the face of the judgement," the plea had said.Besides the association, several other petitions, including one by the Nair Service Society (NSS), have been filed against the SC verdict.

The NSS had said in the plea that as the deity is a 'Naistika Brahmachari', females below the age of 10 and after the age of 50 years are eligible to worship him and there is no practice of excluding worship by females.

"Hence, the delay or wait for 40 years to worship cannot be considered as exclusionary and it is an error of law on the face of the judgement," the plea had said.