Quixotic perception

Supreme Court is to review its own judgment passed on September 28,2018 which lifted the ban against disallowing girls and women in the age group of 10-50 from entering Sabaramila temple. Justice Dipak Misra-headed Constitution bench in a 4-1 verdict said the temple rule violated their right to equality and right to worship. The issue of ban on women in the age group of 10-50 . Another reason women between these particular ages are prohibited from entering the compound is due to the immense taboo around menstruation. Many strongly believe that a menstruating woman is an impure person, thus making it impossible for her to complete the 41 days of vratham (purification period). The Devasom Board, managing the temple, was quick to point out that this exclusion was not necessarily anti-women, but a rule created to accord to the practical impossibilities of the impure physiology of a woman’s body. A PIL was filed by Indian Young Lawyers Association which reached the Supreme Court on January 2016. The Supreme Court order was met with divided response On one side-women feminists, activists and liberals celebrated but on the other side, religious orthodoxy, right wing conservationists including political parties like BJP and Congress resented the “interference into religious practise by a court”. The issue has also polarised society between those who applauded the court order and those who stood by the traditional practises of the Sabaramila management. Since 1991, the Kerala High Court has been upholding the law which bans women between the ages of 10-50 years from entering the temple premises. This is enforced under the Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules 1965 which dictates that in religious areas where women are not allowed to enter “by custom”, this custom shall be maintained. It has also been emphasised that the prohibition was not against all women, but only those of menstruating ages. The protests by conservative Hindu groups including political parties opened a furious debate on whether a civil court can strike down religious practices and whether doing so , does imply interference as well as violation of Article 25 of the constitution of India. The problem is that ban on menstruating women has been in existence for hundreds of years. The advent of feminism has led to the challenge against such “medieval practises” as these are seen as being anti-women and going against the very basis of gender equality. The Supreme Court has decided to hear the writ and review petitions from January 22,2019. These petitions maintain that courts should not view religious practises through the prism of law but as culture that have been practised for centuries. In the Sabarimala case, women have never protested as they did not see any need for because they respect tradition. If feminists continue to see Sabarimala as a point of fighting against gender discrimination, perhaps they need to figure out why do they only target Sabarimala when hundreds other temples impose some restrictions on women also? Therefore, this makes people wonder as to whether it was even necessary to raise the issue of restriction on women from entering Sabarimala in the first place?