13.5 C
New Delhi
Wednesday 22 January 2020

Women may continue to enter Sabarimala but case isn’t over

The petitioners say women who want to enter Sabarimala are not Ayyappa devotees in the first place and so they cannot be an aggrieved party

The Supreme Court has refused to ban the entry of women into the Sabarimala shrine of Lord Ayyappa as of now. However, the court has referred the matter to a larger bench. Now a seven-judge bench will deliberate upon this case. This happened after the two judges in the existing bench disagreed to arrive at an agreement on the issue.

While hearing the Sabarimala case, the Supreme Court said that the case would not only affect this particular temple but also the entry of women in mosques and the entry of Parsi women in Agariya. The Supreme Court said that traditions should be in accordance with the supremely accepted rules of religion. With this, the Supreme Court has handed over the Sabarimala case to a larger bench. Now a bench of seven judges will hear this matter. On Thursday, a five-judge bench referred the matter to a larger bench with a 3:2 decision.

Until a few years ago, menstruating women were not allowed to enter the Sabarimala temple in Kerala. In the past few years, the issue was raised in the Supreme Court by some feminist organisations, after which the Supreme Court ruled in their favour. The court, in its judgment, allowed women to enter the temple.

A review petition was filed before the bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi against this verdict of the court, citing tradition and religious issues. Hearing this matter, the Supreme Court has allowed a status quo on its previous judgment.

Earlier, on 28 September 2018, the Supreme Court had given a decision allowing all women to enter the temple. The court had said that preventing the entry of women into the temple on the basis of gender was a discriminatory practice, which violated the fundamental right of women.

The review petitioners, on the other hand, argued that the women who wanted to enter the Sabarimala temple were not members of the sect in the first place and that these women activists were merely making a political point before which they had never shown any interest in Sabarimala.

Advocate J Sai Deepak who has been fighting the Sabarimala case as well as enlightening the people about it described today’s action by the Supreme Court as “foot in the door“.

Stay on top - Get daily news in your email inbox

Sirf Views

Pandits: 30 Years Since Being Ripped Apart

Pandits say, and rightly so, that their return to Kashmir cannot be pushed without ensuring a homeland for the Islam-ravaged community for conservation of their culture

Fear-Mongering In The Times Of CAA

No one lived in this country with so much fear before,” asserted a friend while dealing with India's newly amended citizenship...

CAA: Never Let A Good Crisis Go To Waste

So said Winston Churchill, a lesson for sure for Prime Miniter Narendra Modi who will use the opposition's calumny over CAA to his advantage

Archbishop Of Bangalore Spreading Canards About CAA

The letter of Archbishop Peter Machado to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, published in The Indian Express, is ridden with factual inaccuracies

Sabarimala: Why Even 7 Judges Weren’t Deemed Enough

For an answer, the reader will have to go through a history of cases similar to the Sabarimala dispute heard in the Supreme Court

Related Stories


  1. I perfectly predicted in my FB post just one day before the ruling that SC will and can never reject the review petitions on #Sabarimala issue, when Muslims faith too involved in a similar entanglement. However I expected that SC will allow the review but CJI cleverly pushed the matter bf a CBench though not warranted.

Leave a Reply

For fearless journalism

%d bloggers like this: