New Delhi: The long-running debate regarding the entry and rights of women at religious places in the country has now reached a turning point. The Constitution Bench of 9 judges of the Supreme Court is starting the hearing on this issue from today, which will continue till April 22.
These cases, pending for about 26 years, include more than 50 petitions, in which important questions have been raised related to discrimination against women in different religions. This hearing can have a wide-ranging impact not only on the Sabarimala temple, but also on other religious practices and rights.
What issues will be heard
In this hearing, the issue of ban on entry of women in Sabarimala temple of Kerala is prominent. Apart from this, matters related to entry of women in mosques, female circumcision in Dawoodi Bohra community and entry of Parsi women in religious places will also be considered.
All these matters have been clubbed together and placed before the Constitution Bench, so that a decision can be taken from a comprehensive constitutional perspective.
hearing scheduled
According to the order of the Supreme Court, the hearing of the Sabarimala review petition will begin on April 7 at 10:30 am.
The parties demanding reconsideration will be heard from 7 to 9 April, while the parties opposing the decision will present their arguments from 14 to 16 April.
Sabarimala controversy: What is the whole matter
There has been a ban on the entry of women aged between 10 and 50 years in the Sabarimala temple for a long time. This restriction is linked to beliefs related to menstruation and the celibacy fast of Lord Ayyappa.
This issue started as a controversy in 1990 and gradually the matter reached the courts. In 2006, the Supreme Court issued notices, while in 2008 it was referred to a three-judge bench.
Historic decision of 2018
In 2018, a five-judge Constitution bench, in a 4-1 majority verdict, allowed women of all age groups to enter the Sabarimala temple. The court declared this ban unconstitutional.
Bindu Kanakadurga and Bindu Amini became the first women to enter the temple amid protests after the decision.
How did the case reach the bench of 9 judges?
In 2019, a bench of seven judges, linking this case to bigger constitutional questions, handed it over to a bench of nine judges. Along with this, matters related to women’s rights in other religions were also included in it.
Now this bench will decide the balance between various religious practices and fundamental rights.
Hearing will be held on five major issues
The key questions that the Constitution Bench will consider include:
- Do women of all age groups have the right to enter Sabarimala temple?
- Can Muslim women be stopped from offering namaz in mosques?
- Is female circumcision in Dawoodi Bohra community a violation of fundamental rights?
- Can Parsi women married to non-Parsis be barred from entering the Agni Mandir?
- Can personal laws be tested on the criteria of fundamental rights?
There will be debate on the provisions of the Constitution
The Supreme Court had clarified in 2020 that it would not consider review petitions directly, but broader issues such as the balance between Article 14 (equality) and Article 25 (religious freedom).
Essential religious practices and limits on judicial intervention were also debated at length during the hearing, which was halted midway due to COVID-19.
Potential impact of the decision
If the Supreme Court upholds its earlier decision, then clear limits can be set for judicial intervention in religious matters in future.
This decision will play an important role in determining the balance between religious freedom and gender equality in the country.
opinions from different sides
The central government had earlier taken a stance in favor of women’s entry, supporting the decision in 2018-2019, but later adopted a balanced approach, calling it a broader constitutional issue.
- All India Sant Samiti says that courts should have limited interference in religious matters.
- The Kerala government believes that discussions with the society and scholars are necessary before making changes in religious traditions.
- The All India Muslim Personal Law Board has said that courts should avoid determining ‘essential religious practice’.
- The Jain community also believes that only its followers should have the right to decide the customs and rituals of any religion.
Comments are closed.