<p class="title">After the Supreme Court's Ayodhya verdict, another judgement having huge ramifications on faith, belief, traditions and individual rights is keenly awaited.</p>.<p class="title">The top court is to pass its judgement this week on a batch of review petitions against its decision allowing entry of women between 10 and 50 years of age into Kerala's Sabrimala temple.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The issue raised before the court pertained to whether right of individuals (women) could be allowed in a public place of worship, irrespective of traditions and practices, whether the devotees of Lord Ayappa could constitute religious denomination within the Article 26 to be given freedom to manage their affairs, among others.</p>.<p class="bodytext">CJI Ranjan Gogoi-led five-judge bench had reserved its judgement in February this year on 65 petitions filed for reconsideration of September 28, 2018, verdict passed by a majority of 4:1.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The judgement may be delivered any day between November 13 and 15 as Justice Gogoi is to demit office on November 17.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Petitioners contended if the constitutional court started to entertain petitions, pertaining to faith, custom, practices and belief, it would virtually open a pandora's box and create pandemonium as various religious practices of other faiths would be questioned.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The court had then opened the doors of famous Lord Ayappa's temple in Pathanamthitta district, Kerala, for all women particularly of between 10-50 years of age, who were, hitherto, barred on the ground that menstruating women were not pure.</p>.<p class="bodytext">It had said that any rule based on discrimination or segregation of women pertaining to biological characteristics was not only unfounded, indefensible and implausible but could also never pass the muster of constitutionality.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Justice Indu Malhotra, the only woman judge on the bench, however, had dissented saying restriction on the entry of women to the temple was based on the unique characteristic of the deity, a celibate God, and was not founded on any social exclusion.</p>.<p class="bodytext">She had sounded a note of caution saying in a pluralistic society of diverse faiths, beliefs and traditions, to entertain PILs challenging religious practises followed by any group, sect or denomination, could cause serious damage to the constitutional and secular fabric of this country.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Notably, the Kerala government asked the court to reject review petitions.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The Travancore Devasam Board, which managed the temple, changed its stand before the court, and supported the judgement.</p>
<p class="title">After the Supreme Court's Ayodhya verdict, another judgement having huge ramifications on faith, belief, traditions and individual rights is keenly awaited.</p>.<p class="title">The top court is to pass its judgement this week on a batch of review petitions against its decision allowing entry of women between 10 and 50 years of age into Kerala's Sabrimala temple.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The issue raised before the court pertained to whether right of individuals (women) could be allowed in a public place of worship, irrespective of traditions and practices, whether the devotees of Lord Ayappa could constitute religious denomination within the Article 26 to be given freedom to manage their affairs, among others.</p>.<p class="bodytext">CJI Ranjan Gogoi-led five-judge bench had reserved its judgement in February this year on 65 petitions filed for reconsideration of September 28, 2018, verdict passed by a majority of 4:1.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The judgement may be delivered any day between November 13 and 15 as Justice Gogoi is to demit office on November 17.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Petitioners contended if the constitutional court started to entertain petitions, pertaining to faith, custom, practices and belief, it would virtually open a pandora's box and create pandemonium as various religious practices of other faiths would be questioned.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The court had then opened the doors of famous Lord Ayappa's temple in Pathanamthitta district, Kerala, for all women particularly of between 10-50 years of age, who were, hitherto, barred on the ground that menstruating women were not pure.</p>.<p class="bodytext">It had said that any rule based on discrimination or segregation of women pertaining to biological characteristics was not only unfounded, indefensible and implausible but could also never pass the muster of constitutionality.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Justice Indu Malhotra, the only woman judge on the bench, however, had dissented saying restriction on the entry of women to the temple was based on the unique characteristic of the deity, a celibate God, and was not founded on any social exclusion.</p>.<p class="bodytext">She had sounded a note of caution saying in a pluralistic society of diverse faiths, beliefs and traditions, to entertain PILs challenging religious practises followed by any group, sect or denomination, could cause serious damage to the constitutional and secular fabric of this country.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Notably, the Kerala government asked the court to reject review petitions.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The Travancore Devasam Board, which managed the temple, changed its stand before the court, and supported the judgement.</p>
