- 19-Apr-2025
- Healthcare and Medical Malpractice
The Sabarimala verdict is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of India in 2018, which allowed women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala Temple, a prominent Hindu pilgrimage site in Kerala. The ruling struck down the temple's ban on women aged between 10 and 50 years (the age group that menstruates) from entering the temple. This judgment was seen as a conflict between religious traditions and the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution, particularly the right to equality and freedom of religion. The verdict ignited a debate on whether tradition should hold precedence over gender equality and individual rights.
The case arose when a group of women petitioned the Supreme Court, challenging the temple’s traditional practice that barred women in the menstruating age group from entering. The Kerala High Court had upheld the practice, citing religious beliefs, but the petitioners argued that such a restriction violated gender equality and discriminated against women.
The Supreme Court's decision was based on constitutional principles, particularly Article 14 (right to equality), Article 15 (prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of sex), and Article 25 (freedom of religion). The Court ruled that women’s right to equality could not be circumscribed by a religious practice that excluded women from a public space, especially when the exclusion was based on biological factors, such as menstruation.
The Sabarimala Temple has long followed a tradition that bars women of menstruating age from entering, based on the belief that Lord Ayyappa, the deity worshipped at the temple, is a celibate god. The traditional practice was justified on religious grounds, with devotees claiming that allowing women in the prescribed age group would violate the spiritual sanctity of the temple.
Supporters of the ban argue that religious practices, even if based on traditional customs, should be protected under freedom of religion (Article 25). They contend that each religious group should be allowed to govern its own religious practices without interference from the state or courts.
Opponents of the ban, especially women’s rights activists, view the restriction as gender discrimination and a violation of constitutional principles. They argue that denying women access to a public place of worship reinforces patriarchy and undermines gender equality.
The Supreme Court emphasized that gender equality should not be sacrificed in the name of tradition, and that women, like men, have the right to access places of worship. The Court's verdict reaffirmed that the right to equality cannot be undermined by outdated religious practices that restrict access based on biological differences.
Supporters of tradition argue that the Sabarimala practice is part of the religious tradition of Hinduism, and traditions should not be altered merely because they seem discriminatory under contemporary interpretations of gender equality. They argue that religious freedom should take precedence over gender equality when it comes to practices that are deeply ingrained in faith.
Some argue that the judgment forces a secular view on a religious matter, potentially leading to the erosion of religious freedom. They believe that the state should not intervene in matters that concern religious doctrines.
Another argument for the ban is that it preserves the purity of the devotional experience for the male devotees of Lord Ayyappa. The belief that a woman’s menstruation renders her impure within the temple’s sanctum reflects deeply entrenched social and religious norms that date back centuries.
Proponents of the ban argue that maintaining this tradition is crucial for maintaining the sanctity of religious rituals that have been followed for generations. To them, allowing the entry of women in menstruating age is seen as an affront to sacred beliefs.
The Sabarimala verdict represents a significant step forward in the protection of women’s rights. By allowing women access to the temple, the Supreme Court upheld the right to equality (Article 14) and the right to not be discriminated against on the basis of sex (Article 15). The Court ruled that religious practices cannot override constitutional rights.
The judgment was a victory for the empowerment of women in a society that has long been patriarchal, ensuring that women cannot be excluded from religious places on the basis of their gender or biological functions.
The Court also emphasized that gender equality is not just a constitutional obligation, but also a fundamental human right. The verdict pushed for social change by challenging patriarchal structures that have long existed in religious and cultural practices.
The decision also reflects a broader movement toward eliminating gender-based discrimination in all spheres, including religion. By recognizing women’s right to enter the temple, the Court signaled that gender equality must extend beyond the confines of secular law and into the sphere of religion.
The Court also recognized that religious practices evolve over time, and it is not uncommon for societies to reinterpret religious norms to reflect contemporary values. By challenging the restriction, the Court opened the door for religious reform in a progressive direction that aligns with modern principles of equality and human rights.
Example 1: After the Sabarimala verdict, several women attempted to enter the temple, but they faced violent opposition from devotees, illustrating the cultural and religious tensions that arose after the judgment. The protests and backlash underscored the clash between tradition and the constitutional right to equality.
Example 2: In contrast, the Shani Shingnapur Temple in Maharashtra, which previously banned women from entering its sanctum, allowed women to enter after the Supreme Court’s Sabarimala ruling, reflecting a broader trend of challenging traditional practices that limit women's access to sacred spaces.
The Sabarimala verdict is seen as a clash between tradition and rights because it pits the constitutional principles of gender equality and freedom of religion against the long-held religious traditions of exclusion. On one hand, the judgment was hailed as a victory for women’s rights and social progress; on the other hand, it sparked intense opposition from those who believe that the state should not interfere in religious practices. Ultimately, the case reflects the ongoing struggle in India between secularism and religious orthodoxy, and the tension between progressive reforms and the preservation of cultural traditions.
Answer By Law4u Team
Discover clear and detailed answers to common questions about Civil Rights. Learn about procedures and more in straightforward language.
