Argument on denying entry of women unacceptable: SC

Sabarimala Temple entry row

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it was not acceptable that a man by virtue of his dominant position can perform austerity and a woman is a chattel of man and would not be allowed entry to Kerala's Sabarimala temple.

The Travancore Devasam Board, which manages the temple, contended before a five-judge bench presided over by Chief Justice Dipak Misra that it was a matter of "bona fide belief", practiced for centuries and accepted by women that those between 10 and 50 years of age would not be able to perform 41-day "vratham" to make a visit.

Senior advocate Abhishek M Singhvi, representing the board, submitted that the court's intervention would have far-reaching consequences on the matter of faith as the case cannot be decided on notions.

The bench, also comprising Justices R F Nariman, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra, however, said all the religious practices and customs have to conform to the constitutional principles.

"A man by virtue of his dominant position is able to perform austerity and a woman is a chattel of a man, subject to the will of a man, so she can't perform austerity. How can we accept it," the bench questioned.

Singhvi, for his part, maintained such male chauvinism is prevalent in societies and religions all over the world. He said no mosque allows any woman.

The bench said there is documentary evidence to suggest the women have a right to enter in the Sabarimala temple.

As far as 41-day of abstinence is concerned, that is subject to law and order, public morality and health, the court added.

"We will obliterate the practice. It is due to the male-dominated society and to the notion that only men can perform 'Vratham' but a female, a chattel of man, cannot do it," the bench said.

"No other temple prohibits women. Right from the day they are born women have to go through social conditioning that this is what you are supposed to follow, this is your role," the bench said.

In his arguments, Singhvi also contended that Sabarimala temple was a denominational temple.

The court cannot disturb a Hindu practice of a particular denomination without factual trial. Article 32 (writ) proceedings would be the wrongest way to do it, he added.