Supreme Court Refers Its Sabarimala Verdict Which Lifted Bar On Entry Of Women To A Larger Seven-Judge Bench

In a 3:2 majority verdict, the Supreme Court has referred the issue of entry of women to the Sabarimala temple in Kerala, as well as other religious places to a larger seven-judge bench.

However, there is no stay on the September 28, 2018 judgment which lifted the ban on the entry of women aged between 10 and 50 to the Sabarimala temple.

According to this order, women of all ages may still visit the Sabarimala temple until a larger bench decides about this issue conclusively.

The majority comprising Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Khanwilkar and Justice Indu Malhotra stated that the issue of whether the court can interfere in essential practices of religion needed examination by a larger bench.

However, Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman dissented strongly.

Reading out the majority judgment, Chief Justice of India Gogoi stated that issues like the legality of Female Genital Mutilation in the Dawoodi Bohra community, Muslim women’s entry to mosques, as well as the right of Parsi women who married outside the Parsi community to access towers of silence, have been referred to a larger bench.

Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman read out the dissenting opinion. He stated that the issues of Parsi women and Muslim women were not before the Sabarimala bench and hence the matter could not be tagged along with them. The original judgment was based on a bona fide PIL which raised the issue of women being denied entry on the basis of their physiological features, Justice Nariman stated.

Speaking out strongly against violent agitations against the Supreme Court verdict in the Sabarimala case, Justice Nariman stated that bonafide criticism of a Supreme Court judgment is permissible, but organized efforts to subvert the judgment cannot be allowed. When a judgment is declared, it is final and binds all, he added.

Incidentally, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court had reserved its orders on review petitions in Sabarimala case after giving a full day hearing to petitioners on February 6.

The Constitution Bench of Chief Justice Gogoi, Justice Ajay Manikrao Khanwilkar, Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Chandrachud and Justice Indu Malhotra heard the arguments in a series of petitions.

These petitions were filed by the Travancore Devaswom Board, the Pandalam Royal Family, and groups of devotees against the September 28, 2018 judgment by the Supreme Court, which declared right of women of all age groups to enter the temple.

The petitioners argued that the practice at the Sabarimala temple was based on the celibate character of its presiding deity, adding that constitutional morality was a subjective test, which should not be applied in matters of faith.

The petitioners argued that religious beliefs cannot be tested on the basis of rationality and that the right to worship has to be exercised in consonance with the nature of the deity as well as essential practices of the temple.

The petitioners argued that the judgment erroneously imported the concept of “untouchability” under Article 17 to the situation of Sabarimala temple, without understanding its historical context.