When Judiciary Questions Religion

T

he cold war waging between two authoritative institutions, the judiciary and religion has been a cause of concern for the world since time immemorial. Religious extremism indoctrinated into the young minds ignited fierce revolts between devotees and the judiciary. With India, being the origin of dominant religions in the world such as Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism and Buddhism, it has always been a hotspot for growing tensions between the judiciary and religion.

The recent event that marked the media attention all over the world is the Supreme Court verdict on Sabarimala issue. The constitution bench of Supreme Court has lifted the ban on entry of women aged between 10-50 on Sabarimala temple. The world then saw the holy land of Sabarimala transformed into an epicenter of protests and violence.

A liberal view on the issue states that banning women to enter Sabarimala is a clear case of discrimination against women. Denying them the right to worship on the basis of their age is indeed a form of untouchability. There is also evidences that women holding authority and also aged between 10-50 had entered Sabarimala temple before. The Shudhi kalasham or the purification ritual that the chief priest performs when a women enters the temple strengthens the argument that women are discriminated and are considered as an impurity.

From the perspective of devotees, the verdict even questions the existence of god or deity.The deity in the Sabarimala temple is a celibate. There is also a legend that Maalikappurathamma, another deity in the Sabarimala temple requested lord Ayyappa to marry her which he rejected. But he assured her that he would marry her when the first time devotees stop visiting Sabarimala temple and Maalikappurathamma has been residing besides him since then. It is believed that women don’t enter Sabarimala as a mark of respect for the endurance that Maalikappurathamma exhibited.   Another irony that adds spice to the issue is that the sole dissenting judge in the Supreme Court panel is a woman, Indu Malhotra. She commented that it is not for the courts to determine which of the practices of a faith are to be struck down except if they are pernicious, oppressive or a social evil like sati. The decrease in pilgrim flow and revenue collection from the Sabarimala temple indeed suggests that the devotee

s are hurt with the new verdict.

The Sabarimala issue has opened a new arena for intense debates all over. Well my personnel comment on the issue is that ‘IT IS REALLY COMPLICATED’.