• Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Sabarimala verdict in Supreme Court highlights: Top court lifts ban, women of all age

prasad1

Active member
Putting an end to a centuries-old tradition, the Supreme Court Friday ruled that women, irrespective of age, can enter Kerala’s Sabarimala temple. A five-judge Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, said that the provision in the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965, which authorised the restriction, violated the right of Hindu women to practice religion. It also said that patriarchy in religion cannot be allowed to trump the right to pray.

The bench, which also comprised Justices R F Nariman, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra, had reserved its verdict in the case on August 2 this year. Four judgments were delivered today. Justice Malhotra, who penned a dissenting verdict, said the petition does not deserve to be entertained.


A clutch of petitions had challenged the ban, which was upheld by the Kerala High Court. The HC had ruled that only the “tantri (priest)” was empowered to decide on traditions. The petitioners, including Indian Young Lawyers Association and Happy to Bleed, argued in court that the tradition is discriminatory in nature and stigmatised women, and that women should be allowed to pray at the place of their choice.



Sabarimala verdict: Top quotes from Supreme Court
Four judges on the bench ruled in favour of lifting the ban on women entering Sabarimala temple. CJI Dipak Misra and Justices Khanwilkar, Nariman and Chandrachud found the practice discriminatory in nature and that it violates Hindu women's right to pray. Here are top quotes from the majority judgment:

  • CJI said devotion cannot be subjected to discrimination. "Patriarchal rules have to change. Patriarchy in religion cannot be allowed to trump right to pray and practise religion", he said. Justice Khanwilkar concurred with the CJI's verdict.
  • Justice Nariman: "To exclude women of the age group 10-50 from the temple is to deny dignity to women. To treat women as children of lesser god is to blink at the Constitution"
  • Justice Chandrachud: "Religion cannot be used as cover to deny rights of worship to women and it is also against human dignity." "Prohibition on women is due to non-religious reasons and it is a grim shadow of discrimination going on for centuries."
  • All judges ruled that devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a separate religious denomination.



https://indianexpress.com/article/i...-women-temples-kerala-5377598/?#liveblogstart
 
Last edited:
[FONT=&quot]The Ayyappan cult is not restricted to Sabarimala. Radhika Sekar, an anthropologist, who has authored the study, The Sabarimala Pilgrimage and Ayyappan Cultus, writes that the myths and legends of Ayyappan are not found in the major Puranic texts. The main sources of the myths and legends are in the folk songs of Kerala and Coorg. The only Sanskrit text that narrates the story of Ayyappan is the 19th century text Bhutanathopakhyanam, she writes. The deity, according to her, is also popular in Coorg and among castes and tribes of the West Coast. Most of the Ayyappan temples were originally uncovered shrines located inside sacred groves. So, irrespective of the origins of the deity and the worship tradition, Ayyappan seems a forest deity. But, barring in Sabarimala, there appears to be no restriction on the presence of women at any Ayyappan shrine.

[/FONT]
https://indianexpress.com/article/lifestyle/art-and-culture/the-pilgrims-progress-2/
 
While the verdict may have mixed response, can the authorities ensure women devotees free and hassle free Darshan, especially on important days?

In case of any misconduct, the sufferer will be the religion.
 
Will SC also bring a rule that topless men should NOT enter Kerala temples?

If it happens, I will be the happiest person on earth!! :)

I am fed up of crowded temples where sweaty, topless guys dash on females! :bump2:
 
Will SC also bring a rule that topless men should NOT enter Kerala temples?

If it happens, I will be the happiest person on earth!! :)

I am fed up of crowded temples where sweaty, topless guys dash on females! :bump2:

Lol!

RR ji has PTSD..post traumatic stress syndrome after the topless mamas dash about!
 
The rule of banning young women must have been because

those who enter that Temple should observe strict vratham for 48 days!

Some guys might be lured by the beauty of the women and misbehave!

There is no such vratham to enter other temples.
 
Will the very same top court exhibit bravery by passing similar order allowing women of other faith to pray in all mosques located in India......??
 
Dear Renu,

PTSD syndrome affects when a teen aged girl is dashed non-stop by a

topless, sweaty, fat man, reminding 'uLundhu māvu', in a crowded temple! :scared:
 
Will SC also bring a rule that topless men should NOT enter Kerala temples?

If it happens, I will be the happiest person on earth!! :)

I am fed up of crowded temples where sweaty, topless guys dash on females! :bump2:

In most temples, at least in Kerala, the priest himself will be topless :)

So shall we bring in changes to the dress code.... perhaps the temple priests can learn something from the Christian evangelists who are always "dressed Tip-Top" in their conventions...
 
While the verdict may have mixed response, can the authorities ensure women devotees free and hassle free Darshan, especially on important days?

In case of any misconduct, the sufferer will be the religion.

It is an idiotic judgment. There are many such things local to certain places, as part of an age-old tradition. In the Attukal temple, in Kerala, there is a ladies' only practice of performing 'Pongala'. Does that make it a matriarchal practice in religion? Is cooking food an activity reserved only to the females? There are Bhagavathy temples in Kerala where the menstruation of the deity is celebrated. One can look at this kind of thing in many ways. But to insist that everything must be seen only through a limited set of 'rational' eyes, is impracticable.

A temple is not a Government Department. Temples have their own procedures. Temples are closed in the afternoon. Isn't the God present in the temple at noon-time? Tomorrow, someone can start a litigation asking that temples be kept open 24 hours a day, else it poses a hurdle on his/her 'right to pray'. Temples have a practice where the deity is offered food or 'nivedyam' and certain restrictions are imposed on the devotees in that period. Tomorrow a litigant can state that, this is a pernicious practice that offends his/her 'right to pray' since obviously the deity made of stone is incapable of eating food. There will be no end to such litigations. This judgment will stir up a hornet's nest.

On the other hand, as one who always prefers prayer in the privacy and seclusion of one's own home, I have enjoyed the watching court battles and TV channel discussions in this matter from a neutral perspective and am looking forward to see more of this.
 
Last edited:
Kafkaesque!

Imagine this situation when Implementing The SC Judgement in letter and spirit ( equality and no discrimination) - with the dress code - women will then have to go topless as well!
 
By comment vide thread 3 proved a point while going through responses. The ultimate sufferer is the religion.

It will be a jolly good day for pseudo sicularists if any mishap happens involving women.
 
While men go top less any where any time, it is the women who have to suffer wearing something to cover their top whether it is the searing heat of Chennai or biting cold of Siberian Vladivostok. This inequality must be fought tooth and nail until equality is established.
 
I remember Sangom Sir.

He wrote that in olden days, the lower caste women were not allowed

to wear upper garments in Kerala! So bad!

Will any of us wish to keep the same dress code now?
 
Dear J J Ji,

I want to start a dharNā to make men come to temples fully dressed and you ...... !!! :fear:

My interest in this Judgment is limited to only legal position because the Judgement seems to be on the opinion of Raju Ramachandran - one of the two Amicus

Noted senior lawyer Raju Ramachandran took a progressive modern view and supported the PIL of Indian Young Lawyers Association, saying that women have "universal and legal right"

https://www.business-standard.com/a...curiae-in-sabarimala-case-118092801069_1.html

Jambu is Raju's சித்தப்பா.!

Making my stand clear Now the next relevant question the Judgement doesn't talk about -

What about the entry of 3rd Gender?
 
I remember Sangom Sir.

He wrote that in olden days, the lower caste women were not allowed

to wear upper garments in Kerala! So bad!

Will any of us wish to keep the same dress code now?

Nauseating Story of Breast Tax

https://edtimes.in/this-woman-from-...-in-protest-against-breast-tax-or-mulakkaram/

Yesterday's Judgment has not talked about anything other than equality and no discrimination So this situation Kafkaesque பிள்ளையார் பிடிக்க காெரங்கு ஆன story!
 
While men go top less any where any time, it is the women who have to suffer wearing something to cover their top whether it is the searing heat of Chennai or biting cold of Siberian Vladivostok. This inequality must be fought tooth and nail until equality is established.

In the biting cold of Vladivostok..its the external gravity challenged appendages that are more at risk for a frost bite..OUCH!
 
My take is this:

There is no need to hit the ceiling or waste the bytes lamenting about the verdict of the court. While court deals with tangibles, faith deals with intangibles also. So there is bound to be a conflicting interpretation when matters of faith are to be judged by courts. And courts are necessary for an orderly life here. So what do we do about this judgment of the court?

In faith it is a given rule that "akrityAnAncha karaNam and krityAnAm varjanam" (doing what is not to be done or what is prohibited and not doing what is to be done or what is laid down as duty) - both are to be carefully avoided. And if you commit any of the two you will accumulate sin which will trouble you relentlessly in this janma as well as in janmas to come.

Agamas which are part of or derivatives of the Vedas stipulate that women in a certain situation should not visit the Shrine at Sabarimala which has the pratishta done as per the Agamaic rules of a particular branch. This is a command which says "don't do this". If someone chooses to violate the edict and visit the shrine it is "akrityanAncha karanam" said above. And the person will accumulate the sin for doing that. The faith can only warn the person not to visit the shrine if not fit as per agamic rules......... And also tell that if she visits she will be accumulating sin. With that the duty of the society ends. The rest is left to the individual concerned.

No one in her right senses would dare to violate the agamic injunction.

We can close the matter and move.
 
We can just argue , argument for argument sake. Can you a show an evidence or vedic script about the practises to be followed in sabarimala temple? As a convention we followed. Thats all. Let us give a chance for change in attitude of ours. Let us not be frozen in our mind.
 

Latest ads

Back
Top