28th September 2018

28th September 2018

Musings.......

The Indian Judiciary- read the Supreme Court seems to be on fire these days. A bouquet of landmark decisions within a few days seems to have taken everybody by surprise. It does seem our Chief Justice wants to make his exit before retirement a memorable one. 

From decriminalising homosexuality and adultery, to the Aadhar - Babri Masjid verdicts the court seems to have projected an image suitable for a forward looking society, fighting for equality and justice and rightly so. 

All the judges involved, in these judgements are legal luminaries,  I should add, who are the best of their trade at present with great credentials. Their job of creating a just and forward looking society by eliminating archaic Victorian era criminal procedures are commendable. 

However, as a citizen of this country and a devotee I beg to differ on their latest judgement on the Sabarimala women entry issue. 

The court here seems to have gotten carried away on its own sense of fighting for equality and justice to understand that differentiated practice is not always discrimination.  

What the majority verdict specifically struck down was Rule3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules 1965, which was the basis on which women in the menstruating age were barred from the temple since the presiding deity was celibate. 

The irony of the matter is that the four judges - Justice Deepak Mishra, the CJI, Justices AM Khanwilker, DY Chandrachud and Rohington Nariman considered equality under the law, while the lone female Justice Indu Malhotra underlined the simple truth - that looking for matters of rationality in matters of religion is futile. 

She noted that deep religious sentiment should not be interfered with by courts unless there is truly an aggrieved party bringing attention to the same. She also emphasised the deity, the celibate Swami Ayyapa, and the practices around him, were protected under article 25 of the Constitution. 

Article 25 deals with " Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion " and says in sub clause 1 - Subject to public order, morality, and health and to the other provisions of this part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion. 

The main matter of contention was whether practices at Sabarimala fall within the definition of freedom of conscience or not. The majority felt it did not and only Justice Indu Malhotra said it did. 

As already stated, being an ardent devotee of Lord Ayyappa and having taken 41 day penance and climbed Sabarimala for the past 23 years, this verdict comes as a disappointment. I am sure many devotees will share my views. As obedient citizens of this great country, I am bound to abide by the Supreme Court decision and obey it.  However, my right to show dissent is what makes me write this note. 

Supreme Court rulings are a reflection of what our society is or has become. Whether courts should interfere in matters of belief is anybody’s guess. What one can conclude is that this verdict rather than creating closure, has opened up a Pandora's box. 

What remains to be seen is whether the court will take into account the apprehension on the nature of this verdict, of millions of Swami Ayyappan devotees the world over. 

Food for Thought.......

RC