Sabarimala is a Hindu pilgrimage centre located in Kerala. Temple is managed by Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB). Dedicated to Lord Ayyappan, the prime deity is considered as the eternal celibate. The controversy revolves around denial of entry to women between the ages of 10 and 50 years into the temple as an old tradition.
Recently, Supreme Court in 4:1 judgment observed that banning the entry of women in Kerala’s Sabarimala temple by the temple authorities is unconstitutional and thus opened temple to women of all ages.

Case of those who support the ban:
• Deity rights: respect for celibate nature of the deity which should be seen as differentiation but not discrimination.
• Nature of shrine : There are some Hindu temples which allow only women. So, should men be allowed in them?
• The ban is enforced under Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules 1965.
• Impurity concept surrounding menstruation is one of the reason for keeping women away from temples.
• Religious rights under Article 25 and 26.

Case of those who oppose the ban:
• Violate women's fundamental rights under Article 14, 15 and 25, which deal with the right to equality, the right against discrimination based on gender and freedom of religion.
• Right to manage its own religious affairs under Article 26 cannot “override the right to practice religion itself” under Article 25.
• Patriarchal notion of bias against women and not religious because all religion support the idea of everyone being equal to God.
• In name of tradition, many social evils have been part of the society like Sati, Devdasi system and untouchability. Reforms have to start at one point.
• In April 2016, the Shani Shingnapur temple, which also barred women from entering its core area for over 400 years, allowed women to pray inside the temple following the court’s orders

Observations made by the Court:
• The Supreme Court bench termed the notification of the Devaswom board, which runs the temple, banning entry of women of a particular age group as absurd.
• Any religion which excludes women on the basis of their age, sex or menarche is irrelevant.
• There is no concept of private mandirs (temples). Once a temple is opened, everybody can go and offer prayers there. Nobody, man or woman, can be excluded.
• It is a public place of worship as it draws funds from the Consolidated Fund of state government.
• Article 25 which mandates freedom of conscience and right to practice religion is a constitutional right.
• Also prohibition on women is not an essential part of Hindu religion and hence the court can intervene.

The dissenting Judge's remark:
• It constitutes that essential religious practice is for the religious community to decide and not for the court.
• Notions of rationality cannot be brought into matters of religions. So issues of deep religious sentiments should not be tinkered with to maintain the secular atmosphere in the country.
• Balance needs to be struck between religious beliefs on one hand and Constitutional principles of non-discrimination and equality on the other.
• However, here one should also understand that the combination of faith and irrationality can be fatal to society. Eminent figures like Rajaram mohan roy and swami Vivekananda have called for re - evaluation of faith based on reason and logic, not mere blind following.

Role of court in religious issues:
There has always been clash between religious tradition and reformist outlook of the Constitution. Even issues like Triple talaq is based upon the debate of religion versus women rights. The Indian form of secularism allow positive involvement of state in the religious matters which is one of its greatest strength.
In order to create balance, the courts have put in place what is known as the “essential practices” test (whether such a belief is essential to that religion) to decide which religious practices are eligible for constitutional protection. And to judge the extent of independence that can be enjoyed by religious denominations.

Role of state and district administration:
Party politics over the issue will further deteriorate the situation. The recent violence seen post opening of the temple gates shows poorly on part of district administration.
The state and district administration need to take positive steps to make supreme court judgment implementable:
• Better handling of law and order with protection to women devotee.
• Deployment of women police on the route.
• Infrastructural needs like separate toilets for women devotee on the route and separate lines for women in temple to prevent manhandling.
• Also the Sabarimala temple is fragile ecosystem and with increasing pilgrims(now women also allowed) the policies on crowd management and ecosystem conservation have to be re-evaluated.

The Final take:
The debate on ‘religious tradition versus gender equality’ is again on display with restriction on entry of women in places of worship like Sabarimala or Shani Shingnapur. Excluding women from access to the shrine is a clear violation of their fundamental rights to equality (Article 14), non-discrimination (Article 15), and freedom of religion (Article 25). The main issue is not just entry, but the idea of "What has been going on since ages" versus "what is the right thing to do".
As a society we need to ask ourselves that why is the burden of man's celibacy put on women? or why menstruation is still a social stigma in our minds ?
Every time religious practice goes so far as to deny women equal status in society, the Constitutional mandate must prevail. The courts or state will have to come forward. However, beliefs and customs cannot be changed through a judicial process. The reforms should come from within the society.

POINTS TO PONDER - INTERVIEW:
• Understanding of articles 14, 15, 25, 26 and their relation to the case
• Should judiciary in first place interfere in every religious/cultural matter like jallikattu
• Religion and discrimination - dalits, women have always been at receiving end
• Various rights involved - Individual rights; the group rights ; deity rights
• Role of state government and district administration
• The dissenting judgment and its evaluation
• Does the case have capacity to redefine the ideas of secularism in India
• What should be future course to handle such issues- law and order, vandalism, rising intolerance in the society