Ban on women in Sabarimala temple not protected by Constitution, Kerala tells SC

Kerala on Wednesday told the Supreme Court that Sabarimala temple does not belong to any religious denomination and it cannot invoke the protection of Article 26 of the Constitution to save the practice of prohibiting women from entering the temple having the deity of Lord Ayyappa in celibate stateAsserting that women in the age group of 10 to 50 years cannot be barred from entering the temple Kerala told the fivejudge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra that Sabarimala temple does not belong to any religious denomination and cannot be counted under Article 26 of the ConstitutionThe court was told that Lord Jagannaths temple Kashi Vishwnath temple and other similar religious places are not denominational temples but the Ramakrishna Mission is oneWith the Kerala government throwing its weight behind the petitioners who have challenged the practice the constitution bench on Wednesday reserved its verdict after holding the hearing spread over eight daysThe hearing had commenced on July 17 and concluded on WednesdayOn the conclusion of arguments the court made it clear that it will decide the issue based on constitutional provision and not by the statues enacted by the state TravancoreCochin Hindu Religious Institution Act 1950 and Kerala Hindu Places of Worship Authorization of Entry Act 1965The court gave both the petitioners India Young Lawyers Association IYLA and the respondents The Travancore Devaswom Board and Nair Service Society a weeks time to file comprehensive written submissionsBesides Chief Justice Misra other judges on the bench are Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman Justice AM Khanwilkar Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Indu MalhotraCountering the arguments advanced by senior counsel K Parasaran who had appeared for Keralabased Nair Service Society senior counsel Jaideep Gupta told the court that the constitutional provision under Article 252b permitting the state to make laws for social welfare and reform is not limited to just social but also stretched to religious reformsJaideep Gupta who appeared for Kerala government said that the Indian Constitution is reformist in approach and any interpretation has to be given a broad meaningTaking a dig at the arguments in defence of the practice on the grounds of its being in existence since time immemorial Gupta said that no practice that does not conform to constitutional provisions and morality can be saved by citing its antiquityIn rejoinder arguments senior counsel Indira Jaising said that for a practice to be a custom it has be from time immemorial and unbroken which was not the case with the practice of prohibiting the women in the age group of 10 to 50 years from entering Sabarmala templeUrging the court to rule against the practice Jaising said that all Hindu laws be its on marriage divorce or guardianship were based on reforming the Hindu practicesIt is also a step in the direction of reforming a practice visavis womena she told the courtAmicus curiae Raju Ramachandran told the court that it is the constitutional morality that will prevail over the sectional morality morality of a section of peopleEven if as argued the Travancore Devaswom Board and Nair Service Society the deity of Lord Ayyappa had rights then they too were subject to constitutional moralitySenior counsel K Ramamoorthy who is other amicus curiae supporting the practice of prohibiting the women from entering the temple told the bench It is a unique Ayyappa temple following a religious practice as protected by Article 251 on the strength of the religious practice based on the religious belief from time immemorialReferring to the antiquity of the practice Ramamoorthy said that temple can invoke Article 251 to protect the practice and since its management is entrusted to a Board by a statute it is duty bound to protect a practice based on religious beliefThe constitution bench was hearing an October 13 2017 reference by a threejudge bench which had framed four questions to be addressed by itThe four questions include whether excluding women 1050 years constitutes an essential religious practice and whether a religious institution can assert a claim in that regard under the umbrella of right to manage its own affairs in the matters of religionBesides the court will also decided whether the Ayyappa temple has a denominational character and if it is permissible for a religious denomination managed by a statutory board and funded by the Kerala and Tamil Nadu governments to indulge in practices violative of the constitutional principlesCatch up on all the latest Crime National International and Hatke news here Also download the new midday Android and iOS apps to get latest updatesThis story has been sourced from a third party syndicated feed agencies Except for the change in headline the story has been provided ASIS AS AVAILABLE without any verification or editing from our side Midday accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability trustworthiness reliability and data of the text Midday managementmiddaycom reserves the sole right to alter delete or remove without notice the content in its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever