Among all the judgements of the supreme court what has mattered the most in Kerala in recent times is the Sabarimala temple judgment. The argument about the ‘’tradition followed need to respected’’ versus the issue of gender rights have now spread to the street, paradoxically led by women themselves Political parties like the BJP which initially supported the judgement has now turned topsy-turvy. The ruling left front is in a quagmire as it knows that deviating too much from the believer’s fold will cost them dearly.
While there have been innumerable debates on the veracity of this tradition what matters is that this judgement has made people question the principle of jurisprudence. As the dissenting Judge Indu Malhotra said can rationality be brought into matters concerning religion?. Another matter of interest for students of law is that on whether tradition or civil rights which one is important. The majority judgement in the court has taken the view that right comes first.
Unlike earlier judgments, in this case, it has opened up a Pandora's box unlike the verdict in the Haji Ali or the Shani Shinganapur cases. The reason is not that it touches the basic belief of the believers but the critical and reactionary mindset of the Malayalee. If belief was the cornerstone of reaction then this schism could have happened in the Shani temple as well.
British jurisprudence which our judiciary has inherited is based on the principle of equality liberty and justice but not on faith or culture and is reflected in our fundamental rights. Looking through that kaleidoscope majority of the judges found that banning an entry violates a right and hence struck it down. The critics argue that the specificity of this particular temple deity which has its own identity and personality need to have been taken into consideration. They say that in the context of this temple the deity is worshipped as a Nastika Brahmachari and the deity ’s personal wish is the basis and belief of the temple tradition which needs to be respected as the deity’s right. Ayyapan has the right to not see menstruating women in his premises and his wish is the belief of his devotees. Well, this rigmarole has resulted in a review petition and let us see how it unfurls.
In my view, the court has stirred a hornet’s nest. The issue of right needs to be looked in the context whether it results in an individual or social pain to the affected . Here it was not that case. As Juggi Vasudev sarcastically said, will not baring me from a women’s toilet violates my right? What was missed is in the analysis of the fact, that rights too have its own rights set up in its own context and can't be generalized. Justice Indu malhotra stands vindicated.
Swamy sharanam
