Open Access Research Article
OPENING DOORWAYS TO PLACES OF WORSHIP: GENDER EQUALITY AND INDIAN JURISPRUDENCE
Published Paper
Article Details
OPENING DOORWAYS TO PLACES OF
WORSHIP: GENDER EQUALITY AND INDIAN JURISPRUDENCE
AUTHORED
BY - DR. AASTHA AGNIHOTRI
1. INTRODUCTION
Even though women are more devotional
and religious than men, [1]inequality
of genders is actually perpetuated by religion. Globally,
inequality in enjoyment of rights is attributed to the deeply entrenched
notions of subordination and patriarchy in tradition, history, religion and
culture.[2]
In most organised religion is inherently patriarchal with men holding all offices
and a very negligible role for women. While
the status of women has considerably improved across the world, they are not
treated equal to men in religion and such inequality is widely regarded as
‘natural’. [3]This
is evidenced by the barriers on entry of women to places of worship. Though
defended in the name of religion and culture, the exclusionary practices
impinge on gender equality and preserve patriarchy in organised religion at the
expense of the rights of women. A woman’s right to enter a place of worship is
entrenched in the Human Rights Instruments, though not implemented in practice.
India
is a fascinating case study as regards barriers on entry of women. Despite the
Constitutional mandate of throwing open the temple to all classes of society,
discrimination and denial of entry to certain sections of society remains
prevalent. However women in India are now coming out in the open to fight
against such discrimination and are seeking the support of the Constitution and
the Courts. The Courts are proving their sincerity and commitment towards
women equality. However the reality reflects the unwillingness of the community
to change. The researcher chose this as an issue of analysis for two primary
reasons. Firstly as there is lack of research at the international level as
regards barriers on entry of women to places of worship and secondly as the
matter remains caught up in a whirlpool of controversy in India despite of the
Supreme Court mandate. Before proceeding, it is pertinent
to specify that the term ‘places of worship’ refers to all places where people
gather to worship, such as church, mosque, temple, synagogues etc. Though
another issue of inequality witnessed inside places of worship is that of
segregation, the same falls beyond the scope of the current research.
Through
the course of the paper, researcher establishes that the barriers on entry of
women to places of worship in India are unconstitutional. This is followed by a
look into the jurisprudence from the country. Emphasis has been placed on the
issues surrounding Sabarimala judgment as that verdict will go a long way in
determining the relationship between women’s rights and religion.
2. BARRIERS ON ENTRY OF WOMEN TO PLACES OF WORSHIP:
INDIAN CONSTITUTION AND JURISPRUDENCE
The
irony of the Indian society is that while women deities are celebrated and
worshipped, women are prohibited from entering and worshipping in a large
number of temples.
Restrictions on women’s entry to worship places have persisted for decades in
India. The women are now fighting tooth and nail for
the right to entry at par with men.The ban on entry of women to places
of worship falls foul of the Constitution of India and the same is established
in this Part. That the act of prohibition of females from entering
are repugnant to the basic dignity of a woman as an individual and also violate
the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15 and 25 of the
Constitution. It is further argued that these Rights must be harmoniously
interpreted in light of Constitutional object, mandate and morality.
a. INDIVIDUAL’S RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF RELIGION
ARTICLE 25
Article
25(1) reads as “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.”
Article
25 secures to everyone and not just the citizens of India, the freedom of
conscience and also the right to freely profess, practice and propagate
religion. Religion has been acknowledged by the
judiciary to be “a matter of personal faith and belief of personal relations of
an individual with what he regards as Cosmos, his Maker or his Creator which,
he believes, regulates the existence of insentient beings and the forces of the
universe.”[4]
It is well settled that the right under an Article 25 is an individual right
and that every person by virtue of this Article has a right to entertain and
exhibit such religious belief as his conscience and judgment deems fit.[5] In The Commissioner of Police & Ors vs
Acharya Jagdishwarananda [6]the
Supreme Court held that the expression religion includes worship and that
Article 25 secures to everyone the right to worship God according to the
dictates of their conscience. [7]
The researcher asserts that the right to enter a place of worship of one’s
choice is intrinsic in the right to exhibit one’s religious belief and also the
right to worship. In the Sabarimala case
the majority observed that the right under Article 25 is rendered meaningless
if there is a denial of entry.
The researcher
therefore asserts that the barriers on entry of women are a violation of the
freedom guaranteed under Article 25. The
use of the expression ‘all persons are
equally entitled to’ explicitly declares the non- discriminatory nature of
the right. In Indian
Young Lawyers Association v State of Kerala, the Honorable Court observed that,
the expression ‘all persons’ demonstrates that the freedom is available to
every person including women.[8]Justice
Nariman observed that women are equally entitled to enter a place of worship of
their choice and denial on entry is a violation of their fundamental right to practice religion as they see it. He
furthermore asserted that any custom restricting entry must necessarily yield
to the fundamental right of women.[9] What is freedom of worship for one is freedom for the
other, in equal measure.[10]
Henceforth, it is argued that any
barrier on entry based is a violation of Article 25.
Two questions may be raised at this
point, first whether a non citizen could claim the right to enter a place of
worship extends? The researcher asserts that as the right under Article 25 is
available to non-citizens, the right to enter places of worship of their choice
is guaranteed by the Constitution of India to them. The second question which
arises here is whether the right to enter places of worship includes the right
to enter places of worship of a religion to which one doesn’t belong? The
researcher asserts that there can be no denial to entry on grounds of religion
as everyone has a right to enter a place of worship according to his belief and
belief of a person is not always confined to his or her religion. In fact, any
denial on grounds of religion would be an affront to the non-discriminatory
nature of this right Henceforth any barrier to entry is unconstitutional. Moreover, the right to enter places of worship is not
dependent on arbitrary discretion of the authorities of the place.[11]
Therefore, it is asserted that the right to enter a place of worship is not
dependant on the will of the authorities of the place of worship and the
barriers imposed on entry are unconstitutional.
RESTRICTIONS
TO ARTICLE 25(1) - The right has been made subject to public order, morality
and health and the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. In the
Sabarimala judgment it has been held that entry of women does not jeopardize
public order, morality or health. The
Court observed that the notions of public order, morality and health cannot be
used as colorable device to deprive women of their legal right to enter and
offer their prayers.[12] In fact
exclusion of women is contrary to the restrictions. Morality as used under
Article 25 means Constitutional morality. To quote the honorable Court, “The
term 'morality' occurring in Article 25(1) of the Constitution cannot be viewed
with a narrow lens so as to confine the sphere of definition of morality to
what an individual, a section or religious sect may perceive the term to mean.
Since the Constitution has been adopted and given by the people of this country
to themselves, the term public morality in Article 25 has to be appositely
understood as being synonymous with constitutional morality.”[13] Liberty,
dignity and equality are the basic tenets encompassing constitutional morality
and exclusion of women is, hence, contrary to constitutional morality. [14] The exclusion
of women is also violative of other fundamental rights, which is established in
subsequent paragraphs. Henceforth, it is asserted that women have a right to
enter places of worship and the restrictions under Article 25 have no effect on
this right.
b. VIOLATION OF EQUALITY AND NON DISCRIMINATION
The
right to equality and non discrimination have been enshrined under Article 14
and 15 of the Constitution. While Article 14 guarantees to all persons equality
before the law and equal protection of law, Article 15 prohibits discrimination including on grounds of gender. The cumulative effect of these articles
is the extension of fundamental rights to all citizens that are supported by
governmental duties to refrain from any form of discrimination and prevent
private citizens and organizations from practicing discrimination.[15] It
is also significant to note that while the right to religion is subject to
other fundamental rights, the guarantee of equality is absolute and henceforth
the latter overrides the former. Henceforth, the practices denying or
restricting the entry to places of worship on grounds of gender nullifies these
guarantees of equality and non discrimination and as the guarantee of equality overrides the
freedom of religion, the barriers on
entry cannot be protected under Article 26.
ARTICLE 14
Article 14 titled equality before law
is the fundamental Charter of equality in the Indian Constitution.[16]
It reads as, “The State shall not deny to any person equality before
the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of
India.” The basic principle which
informs Article 14 is inhibition against discrimination,[17]
and a quest for ensuring fair treatment in every aspect of human endeavour and
in every facet of human existence. [18] It is a guarantee of substantive equality to
the disadvantaged groups which have faced structural and systemic exclusion.[19]
In
Gender equality is inherently intertwined in the Constitutional guarantee of
equality and the rights of women are constitutionally protected at par with the
rights of men. This means that women have a right to enter places of worship at
par with men.Hence it is derived that the Article secures an equal
participation for women in all spheres of human life and requisitions
dismantling of the gender based hierarchy which causes exclusion and oppression
of women.[20]
Clearly the
exclusionary practices are an anathema to the guarantee of equality and
henceforth violative of Article 14. Besides, the customs excluding women from entering
places of worship are discriminatory, unjust and unfair. Henceforth, barriers
on entry to places of worship are constitutionally infirm as violating the
guarantee of equality under Article 14.
ARTICLE 15
Article 15 of the
Constitution titled ‘Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race,
caste, sex or place of birth’, states:
“1) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on
grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.
(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race,
caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, be subject to any disability,
liability, restriction or condition with regard to—
(a) Access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of
public entertainment; or
(b) The use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places
of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to
the use of the general public.”
Discrimination
solely on grounds of gender is specifically prohibited by this Article. Denying
women entry solely on the grounds of sex is discriminatory and violates Article
15. It is asserted that though there is no mention of places of worship under
the list given in Article 15(2), it is a form of place of public resort
dedicated to the public and thus discriminatory denial on entry of women to places
of worship is in violation of the Article 15.
Once it is
established that the barriers on entry of women violates the right to equality
enshrined under Article 14 and Article 15, it is important to discuss the
limitation of the Articles. The expression “State shall” makes it difficult to
use the Articles for justifiability in cases the violation is by non state
actors. The researcher however asserts that the obligation of the State under
Article 14 extends to ensuring that the same is not violated by private actors.
Perhaps the obligation of state imbibes an obligation to ensure that there is
no gender discrimination by religious institutions and to ensure women have a
right to enter places of worship at par with men.
ARTICLE 17- UNTOUCHABILITY
The
Constitution of India has abolished untouchability and forbidden its practice
in any form.[21]
This is a powerful guarantee against exclusion that aims to preserve human
dignity. [22]
Exclusion from places of worship is a form of untouchability which stigmatises
one class of people as impure In absence
of a definition of the term untouchability, the understanding of the Article
has traditionally been limited to caste- based untouchability.[23]
However Justice Chandrachhud in the Sabaimala judgment, placed reliance on the
Constituent Assembly debates and the use of the expression “in any form” in the Article, to
acknowledge that untouchability also includes gender based untouchability.[24]
The
researcher asserts that customs which exclude one gender
from entry to sanctum sanctorum of a place of worship on the ground that the
entry of women are unconstitutional as they amount to untouchability.
Exclusion of women is based on conception of purity and pollution which results
in stigmatied ome clae
of people aed on conception of “purit and pollution” would run counter to the contitution’ prohiition of “untouchailit.”
Moreover,
the thrust of Article
17
is to liberate the society from blind and ritualistic adherence and traditional
beliefs which lost all legal or moral base.[25] Considering that the exclusionary practices
are based on blind traditional beliefs, which have no space in a constitutional
order, it is argued that Article 17 must be brought to the forefront to abolish
such practices.
It is pertinent to mention that this Article is also enforceable against
non state actors including religious organisations. In Asiad Project Workers
case, the honourable Supreme Court held that the State has a constitutional
duty to ensure that the right under Article 17 is not violated even by private
individuals and that the State duty also included taking all necessary steps to
ensure untouchability is not practiced.[26]
Henceforth, it is argued that the State is under a Constitutional duty to
abolish the exclusionary practices across all religious organisations and
ensure that there is no violation of the right to enter places of worship.
c. RIGHT OF THE PLACES OF WORSHIP TO MANAGE ITS’S OWN
AFFAIRS
Article
26 titled freedom to manage religious affairs, provides every religious denomination
the right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion. No legislation or state action can violate it
except for health, morality and public order. This Article is the right
guaranteed to an organised religion which satisfies three conditions:-
1.
Is a collection of individual who
have a system of beliefs which they regard as conducive to their common faith.
2.
Has a common organisation
3.
Designated by a distinctive name.
Any
religious group which meets the triple test and is thus held to be a religious
denomination can manage its own affairs in religious matters.[27]
The expression ‘matters of religion’ means religious practices, rites and
ceremonies considered essential for religion.[28]
The Honourable Courts through the doctrine of essential religious practices
classifies religious practices as essential and non-essential[29] Practices
recognised to be essential by religion are given immunity from being tested
upon the touchstone of the Constitution. In Khursheed Ahmad Khan v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Others[30],
it was observed that merely because a practice is permitted or not prohibited
under religion, does not mean that it is essential to religion. Though the
barriers on entry are not prohibited under religions, they do not constitute an
essential part of religion either. Prohibition
on women is due to non-religious reasons
and it is a grim shadow of discrimination going on for centuries.[31] Hence they do not have immunity
and are bound to be struck down.
Moreover,
even if it were to be assumed that the prohibition on entry of women is an
essential practice, the same would still have to be dismantled as the freedom
under Article 26 is not absolute. By subjecting it to morality, the founding
fathers have set limits on the right of the religious denominations. Thus any tradition or custom must be moral,
constitutionally moral. The barriers on
entry of women to places of worship cannot take refuge as essential religious
practice as they are an affront on the constitutional morality. Clearly the practices
prohibiting entry of women are discriminatory and restrict the liberty of women
to entry and thereby have no protection under Article 26.
d. ARTICLE 25 OVER RIDES ARTICLE 26(B)
The
barriers on entry of women to places of worship have become symbolic of debates
about freedom of religion and women’s rights. While right guaranteed under
Article 25 is an individual right, the right under Article 26(b) is a group
right.
A
group is made up of individual persons and the protection rendered to the
rights of the group is substantially to promote the well being of the
individuals of the group. The researcher asserts that the group right to
freedom of religion cannot annihilate the right of the individual as the former
is intended to safeguard the latter.[32]Henceforth
an organised religious group cannot create a barrier on enjoyment of the
individual’s right to freedom of religion. Moroever in the Sabarimala judgment
the mjoarity verdict exolicitky held that the rights under Article 26 are
subordinate to the mandate of the Constitution to open places of worship to all
sections of society .[33]
4. BREACH OF SOCIAL CONTRACT
The
Preamble which begins with the words “we the people’’ symbolises the birth of a
new social contract in independent India. This social contract is the
foundation stone of the Constitutional order that holds the promise of justice,
liberty, equality and fraternity. The use of the expression we the people
signifies that women and third gender constitute a party to the social contract
as much as men.
By
virtue of the social contract everyone is entitled to the liberty of belief,
faith and worship. A right to enter any place of worship of one’s can be
adduced from this guarantee of liberty. When women are denied entry it is a
violation of the contractual guarantee of freedom to enter places of worship as
dictated by their belief and faith. The social contract also secures equality.
Read with the liberty to worship it means everyone is equally entitled to enter
places of worship of their choice. When women are denied the right to enter
places of worship on grounds of gender, they are treated as inferior to men and
this clearly constitutes discrimination and breach of the guarantee of
equality. Thus, the denial of entry to places of worship at par with men
breaches the social contract guarantees of equality and the liberty to worship.
Moreover it is also an anathema to the guarantee of social justice in the
contract as also derogatory to the dignity of women.
The
social contract is a reassurance to the disadvantaged sections of the society
including women that the obligations owed to them will be fulfilled. Henceforth,
the researcher asserts that the exclusionary practices are a blink at the
social contract as they run contrary to the guarantees of equality, justice, liberty
of worship and fraternity. The State owes a duty to women under the social
contract to dismantle all barriers on entry of women to places of worship.
Furthermore the duty of the state includes creation of a social and legal order
where women are not treated as children of a lesser God. It is asserted that
the obligation of the State under the Preamble is non negotiable and it cannot
shield the exclusionary practices.
5. DISMANTLING OF BARRIERS BY THE JUDICIARY
The
judiciary plays an important role in the protection of all rights and in
ensuring that there is adherence to the Constitution. In the recent past the
judiciary has set precedents on gender restrictions to places of worship
by adroitly adjudicating the tense stand-off between women’s claims to freedom
of worship and gender equality on one hand and the freedom of the religious
organisations to practice religion on the other hand. Demonstrating a commitment to
upholding the Constitution, the courts have dismantled
the barriers on entry and pressed for an end to gender based exclusion to
entry. This has encouraged several
petitions as regards entry of women to places of worship being filed in the
High Courts and the Supreme Court. However the aftermath of these judgments
also unleashes the reality of the society and the resistance to change. In this
part, we discuss the jurisprudence on the right of women to enter places of
worship and also the resistance to embrace change.
·
HAJI ALI
DARGAH CASE: Dr. Noorjehan Safia Niaz and Another v. State of Maharashtra and
Ors.[34]
The
Hajji Ali Dargah shrine in Mumbai is the resting place of the Sufi saint Pir Haji Ali. From 1430 to 2011 women were allowed in the
inner sanctum (the tomb of the saint) of the shrine but through a separate
entrance. In 2011 the Haji Ali Dargah Trust banned women from entering the
inner sanctum sanctorum. Consequently the ban was challenged in the Bombay High
Court through a Public Interest Litigation, filed by an organisation of Muslim
women ‘the Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan’ on the ground that right to freedom
of religion enshrined under Article 25 of the Constitution, was also a right of
the women and that the arbitrary ban was clearly a violation of Article
14(equality) and Article 15(non- discrimination) of the Constitution. The
Dargah Trust defended the ban primarily on two grounds that the entry of women was a sin
under Islamic law and secondly that by virtue of the right under Article 26 of
the Constitution, the Trust had a right to manage its affairs in matters of
religion without any interference. It also defended the ban on grounds that it
was in the best interest and safety of women, and especially important for
preventing sexual harassment at places of worship.
The Honorable Court restored the status quo ante i.e.
permitted entry to women at par with men. It ruled that the ban contravened the
right to worship, equality and non- discrimination. The Court did not find the
exclusion of women from the sanctum sanctorum to be an essential or integral
part of Islam as there was nothing to show that entry of women would change the
character of the belief or religion. It held that the right of the trust to
manage the affairs of religion could not override women’s right to worship and
practice religion. Holding the Dargah Trust to be a public charitable trust and
the Dargah to be a public place of worship, it ruled that the shrine had to be
open to all and no one could be denied entry to it. The Court also held that
the “State is equally under an obligation to ensure that the fundamental rights
guaranteed under Articles 14, 15 and 25 of the Constitution are protected and
that the right of access into the sanctum sanctorum of the Haji Ali Dargah is
not denied to women.”
The
judgment is exemplary as it acknowledged an equal right to pray and opened the
shrine for women, despite there being no explicit constitutional[35]
or legislative mandate. Thus it sets the right precedent for cases of entry of
women to places of worship, specifically Muslim places of worship. The judgment dismantles the barrier on entry
by ruling that the exclusion had no constitutional protection under Article 26
and by holding that public places of worship cannot discriminate on grounds of
gender. It is plausible that the conclusions are constitutionally backed and
the Court even while examining the ban from the prism of ‘essential practice’
abstained from interpreting the Islamic doctrines. The Court affirms its commitment to gender
equality and also obligates the State to ensure women have access to the
sanctum. However as no custom was
claimed by the Trust, it remains questionable if the Judges would arrive at the
same conclusion in case of an established custom.
·
SABARIMALA CASE
LAW:
The
Sabarimala temple which is located in the Southern state of Kerela is a revered
hill shrine where women between the ages of 10-50 years have been banned entry
to the sanctum sanctorum. The ban has been justified on the grounds that the
deity, Lord Ayyapa, is a Nashtika Brahmchari i.e. eternal celibate and entry of
women breaks his vow of celibacy. This blanket ban on entry of women has been
questioned in a long legal battle (which is yet to be culminated[36]
) and the issue has in the last few years’ commanded national attention. A 4:1
majority of the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court held that the
exclusion of women was unconstitutional and the practice went against the
guarantees of equality, liberty and freedom of religion.
FACTS-
Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places
of Worship Rules, 1965 proclaimed that where a custom or usage of a place of
worship so prohibits, women shall not be at liberty to entry or worship. Deriving
from this the Travancore Devaswom Board which manages the Sabarimala temple
issued notifications in the years 1955and 1966 banning entry of women within
the age group of 10-50 years, citing tradition.
HIGH COURT[37]-
The
Constitutionality of the ban on entry of women and the Rule 3(b) was challenged
in the High Court in the year 1991.The Division Bench of the Court refused to
accept the ban to be discriminatory and upheld its constitutionality. Emphasising
that the prohibition is not on women as a class but only on women
between an age group, it held that the ban was only a case of differential
treatment and not constitutional discrimination. The
Court also justified the ban on grounds of celibate nature of deity, the
impossibility of women aged 10-50 to follow the 41-day vratham required to
enter the temple and preservation of the sanctity of the temple. Most importantly it held the temple to be a
religious denomination which had a right to determine its customs and courts
had no jurisdiction to interfere with such customs. It also held that the
individual right to freedom of religion can be trampled by the right of the
religious denomination to manage its own affairs.
PETITION IN the SUPREME COURT-
Fifteen
years after the decision of the High Court, the Constitutionality of the ban
was challenged in the Supreme Court in a Public Interest Litigation on the
grounds that it runs against the guarantees of freedom of religion, equality
and non-discrimination. The issue came to the forefront once again in 2006,
when an actor from the prohibited age group claimed that she managed entry into
the inner sanctum sanctorum. The case was referred to a five judge Constitutional Bench comprising
the Chief Justice and four other Judges, including one woman judge.
The Supreme
Court considered the constitutionality of the ban on entry of women and also
considered whether or not such a ban was essential to religion and thereby
protected. The Court also looked into the question if the Temple qualifies as a
religious denomination.
JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court
held the prohibition on entry of women aged 10 – 50 years as unconstitutional
and struck of the legislation by virtue of which the ban was imposed. Justice
Mishra and Khanwilkar refuted the claims that Sabraimala constituted a separate
religious denomination. They also held that the ban on women was not an
essential practice and henceforth could not be protected. They also struck down
Rule 3(b) on grounds that it was contrary to the Constitutional mandate that
temples be opened to all sections and classes of Hindus. Justice Rohinton
Nariman in his concurring but separate judgment held that The wordings of
Article 25 make it explicit that the women of all age groups are equally
entitled to practice religion and enter the sanctum sanctorum of the Sabarimala
shrine. He also held the Rule 3(b0 to be contrary to Article 15 i.e.
discriminatory. Justice Chandrachud in his judgment emphasized in the
transformative aspect of the Constitution and
that the constitution was designed to remedy the tradition of discrimination
against women and other marginalized sections of society. He held that any
gender based exclusion could not pass the test of the Constitution. What is
remarkable is that he embraced the exclusion as a form of untouchability
because the ban was on grounds of purity and sanctity of the temples.
DISSENTING VERDICT
Ironically
the only woman judge on the Bench upheld the Constitutionality of the ban and
re-iterated the judgment of the high court. She held that a secular polity like
India must respect the autonomy of a religious denomination to determine its
internal affairs and the courts should not delve into the rationality of
religious practices. Moreover she held that the petition was not maintainable
as petitioners were not devotees of Ayyappa.
A
reading of the dissenting judgment presents a de minimis rationale and is
extremely flawed. She failed
to drop the blindfold and see that under the traditional practice hides
discrimination of women and deprivation of their rights. Her
judgment is also an affront on the social contract. Her judgment sets a
dangerous precedent as regards women’s equality in matters of religion and it
would be unfair to complete the research without rebutting her dissent.
I.
REJECTION OF
MAINTAINABILITY OF THE PETITION IS ERRED
Justice
Malhotra questions the locus standi of the petitioners on grounds that they are
not devotees of the particular manifestation of the deity. [38]
This is contestable as it questions the
very institution of Public Interest Litigation and moreover neglects the fact
that the internalisation of traditional
practices restricts people from within the community to approach the courts or
question the tradition. Also if her views are accepted, parties like the petitioners
would have to be passive spectators to human rights violations that take refuge
under tradition[39]
and consequently such violations of rights would continue for centuries
unharmed.
Moreover,
she observes that ‘In matters of religion and religious practises, Article 14
can be invoked only by persons who are similarly situated, that is, persons
belonging to the same faith, creed, or sect.’ [40]
Clearly the
judge errs in her application of the concept of similarly situated as the very
institution of Sabarimala is secular where men from all religions and castes
have an absolute right to entry and the prohibition is only on women aged
10-50. Also individuals simultaneously
worship different deities and go to different places of worship at the same
time and she creates an unreasonable classification among devotees, which
itself is affront to the Constitutional guarantee of equality. Moreover temple entry cannot be relegated to
the realm of internal affairs which is exclusively expected to be taken up
within the community[41]
and if this is accepted as constitutionally valid, the lower castes would also
not have entry to places of worship, which is in contrast to the mandate of the
founding fathers.
What's
more is that she errs in saying, ‘Permitting PILs in religious matters would open
the floodgates to interlopers to question religious beliefs and practises, even
if the petitioner is not a believer of a particular religion, or a worshipper
of a particular shrine.’ While it may be
true that there would be some petitions but considering that the Supreme Court
has started penalising fallacious petitions, her observations are clearly a
hyperbole. Also it is highly condemnable
for a Judge of the Supreme Court to turn a blind eye to human rights violation
on the ground that entertaining third party petitions would open the floodgates
to interlopers.
The
researcher also finds it necessary to mention that her reasoning has set a bad
guide which was embraced by the honourable Supreme Court while dismissing a
petition, filed by a Hindu group, demanding entry of Muslim women to mosques.[42]
II.
Separate
Religious denomination
The judge holds the Sabarimala temple to be a ‘distinct
religious denomination’. Moreover while through her judgment she gives a strict
interpretation to the Constitution, she justifies her conclusion in this
regards on the ground that a liberal interpretation ought to be given for
advancing the Constitutional object of a pluralistic society.[43]
III.
Essential religious
practices
Though the ban is
unsubstantiated in history, she still holds it to be essential. Moreover, while
the very essence of the ‘essential practice doctrine’ is to fashion religion
according to the Constitution instead of accepting in toto the beliefs of the
practitioners,[44]
the judge emphasizes that the issue of
what constitutes an essential religious practice is for the religious community
to decide.[45]
Thus her ruling is flawed and contradictory to the very jurisprudence she takes
support of to justify her ruling. It would be ridiculous to bestow the
custodians of religion with such a kind of impunity. By giving the community
absolute power to decide on religious practices, she not only neglects a
historical past and a patriarchy in religion but also opens the doors for women
oppression.
IV.
Fallacious to hold that courts
should not delve into the rationality of religious practices.
The Constitution casts an obligation on the judiciary to transform the
status quo ante into a new human order in which social justice informs all
institutions. The Supreme Court in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India held that in a society
pulsating with urges of gender justice and equal justice between chronic
inequalities, the Courts cannot act merely as umpires and must be functionally
involved in the goal of social justice.[46]Thus it is erroneous for
Justice to make such an observation and actually by protecting the religious
practices over the fundamental rights of women, she rips the foundations of
justice.
Moreover she holds that the courts cannot delve into the
constitutionality of practices of a faith unless they are pernicious,
oppressive or a social evil like Sati,[47]
without answering why the exclusionary practice does not fit the criteria. The
research contests her observation, as even though the ban on women is not as
monstrous as a practice like Sati but it is nonetheless oppressive and evil.
Thus this observation
is not just flawed but also unconstitutional.
V.
UNMERITED TO
CONCLUDE THAT ARTICLE 25 OVER RIDES ARTICE 14
In holding that
equality under ARTICLE 14 CANNOT TRAMPLE OVER ARTICLE 25, she commits two major
errors. Firstly she fails to acknowledge that the right and freedom of religion
is also an individual right. Secondly by saying that equality cannot override
freedom of religion she fails to acknowledge that the founding fathers have
made equality an absolute right and not vice versa. Moreover she does not
provide any reasoning as regards how do women’s right to enter temples affect
the freedom of religion and why the two rights can’t be read harmoniously. She
also fails to appreciate that the right to worship in a place of worship of
one’s choice is a constitutional right and holds that the ban on entry of women
aged 10-50 is justified as women can worship the deity in other temples.. The judge while holding that the religious denomination’s
right overrides an individual’s, failed to acknowledge that the Constitution is
primarily for the individual and they constitute the basic unit of the Indian
Constitutional polity.
Arguably her judgment reveals a bias towards the exclusionary practices
and sets a wrong precedent and provides a weapon to the supporters of the ban
including the State to criticize the majority judgment. She failed to drop the
blindfold and see that under the traditional practice hides discrimination of
women and deprivation of their rights.
6. SABARIMALA CASE: AN OPPORTUNITY MISSED
While
nationally and internationally much attention has been given to the
transformative aspect of the Judgment, the shortcoming of the judgment has not
been highlighted. The researcher highlights two of the shortcomings in this
Part.
·
FAILURE TO OVERRULE THE ESSENTIAL
RELIGIOUS PRACTICE DOCTRINE-As per the Constitution, the customs and practices
are only bound to be tested at the touchstone of the Constitution and no other
text.[48]
However, by virtue of the essential religious practice test which was evolved
by the Judiciary in Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras
v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, [49]the
validity of the religious practices are tested on the basis of religious texts rather than on the
index of the Constitution. The researcher asserts that the test of essentiality
is a barrier to equality as practices interpreted to be essential by the judges
are given immunity from Constitutional scrutiny. As a consequence,
even 70 years after the Constitutional order was established in India, the
Constitutional principles of non discrimination and equality, which the
founding fathers held dear, are trampled over by customs.
Moreover, the test requisitions judges to decide validity of a custom
based on reading of religious texts, rather than the Constitutional law and
thereby compels men of law to theologians. To quote Justice Chandrachud,“Due to this
essentiality doctrine, Judges including Supreme Court judges are now assuming a
theological mantle which we are not expected to do.” [50]He
suggested that the testing of essentiality must be done away with and a
practice must only be tested on the touchstone of the Constitution.
Though
it is plausible that the majority judgments concluded that the exclusion is not
an essential practice and even noted the re-examine the essential religious
practice doctrine, the Supreme Court missed an opportunity to do away with the
essential religious practices test and establish supremacy of constitution over
all customs in law.
·
It is pertinent to mention that in a
few cases concerning rights, the Supreme Court mandates the Government and
legislature to bring in policy to safeguard the right. However the Sabarimala
verdict is quiet on it. Besides the verdict falls short of completely
dismantling barriers on entry and the legality of a ban will have to be decided
case to case basis. This also burdens the judiciary as a number of petitions
have been filed in the High Courts and the Supreme Court. It also remains
questionable if a place of worship has prohibiting women and no legislation
governing it, like in the case of Nizammuddin Dargah, would the Court still
uphold the supremacy of the Constitution over the exclusionary practice.
7. TRANSFORMATIVE JUDGMENT
In
quest for upholding the Constitution, the Supreme Court has brought down by its
innovative judgments many customs and practices. Particularly in the last decade the Supreme
Court and even the High Courts have had the audacity to change the status quo
as regards women in a patriarchy minded society. The Sabarimala judgment is the latest addition
to the transformative jurisprudence that changes the status quo as regards
entry of women to temples. It firmly entrenches constitutional morality and
liberates women’s rights from the choking hold of organized religion. It disrupts the existing norms
and stereotypes about women, particularly women of the child bearing age in
religion and thereby acts as a catalyst of change in the society. Through the Verdict in Sabarimala, the Supreme
Court has also infused values of equality in society and this will go a long
way in breaking mental blocks and shackles which hold women back from
participating in daily life during menstrual cycle.[51] Thus it is not merely a landmark as regards
entry to temples but also a case in point of judicial hammering that pushes the
patriarchal Indian society to embrace gender equality and crawl out of
medievalism.[52]
It is not exaggeration to say that the Sabarimala judgment is the Brown vs
Board of Education of Topeka as regards equality of women in matters of
religion and just like the latter it is a pragmatic bow to justice.[53]
Is
it sheer coincidence that in the history of temple entry in India, only men
have ruled on who can enter temples, when and how? Why should such things be
decided on the good faith or lack of it of a dominant class/group that holds
power over another, one way or the other? Even that, is a tradition, that
cannot be justified on grounds that it cannot be changed, only because it is
one.[54]
Was that also the “will of the deity”, prevailing over everything else, and can
be easily upheld in courts?
The judgment has
also been criticized as a case of judicial overreach and social engineering on
the ground that the courts cannot tell a community what to believe.[55]
The fact that the popular conscience is
against entry of women is being used to construct the verdict as a case of social engineering. However the researcher
asserts that the test of popular acceptance does not furnish a
valid basis to disregard rights which are conferred with the sanctity of
constitutional protection.[56]
Many
question the Court’s verdict as interference with divine law. The researcher
asserts that the practice could not be equated to divine law. Firstly it had no
express basis in religious doctrine and secondly women have been allowed in
between to enter. Thus the question of divine law does not withstand.
However it may be
asked at this point that where should the court draw line while deciding on
cases involving religions and traditions on one hand and individual rights to
equality on the other and who decides the line ?
8. RESISTANCE: Limits to state capacity to reform
Despite
the Supreme Court verdict, the right to enter places of worship continues to reside in controversy. It
was greeted with outrage from the fanatic mob that refused to abide by
the verdict and allow women to enter the shrine. Though the State Government of
Kerala aided the entry of women from the prohibited age, all other political
parties including the ruling party at the centre remained critical of it and
added fuel to the fire. As a consequence in spite of police protection women
could not enter the shrine. Two women who were abel to enter he shrine
subsequently faced violence and trauma, revealing the depth of the
internalisation.[57]
This reveals the limits on the state’s capacity to sort out unfair religious
practices without mobilizing the believers themselves.[58]The mobilisation
against entry of women is in fact a full throated mobilisation against the
authority of the Court and legitimises the idea that religious faith has a
final veto over the Constitution. Accordingly it exposes the challenge to rule
of law from passions of faith and religion.[59]
9. CONCLUSION
While
the status of women has considerably improved across the world, they are not
treated equal to men in religion and such inequality is widely regarded as
‘natural’. [60] Since the adoption of the UN Charter
and subsequently the UDHR, women’s rights have been acknowledged as a part of
universal and indivisible human rights. However, while human
rights instruments proclaim that everyone is equal, the attainment of this is hampered
by the failure to perceive the barriers on entry as a form of gender
discrimination. Moreover, the International Law is yet to definitively and
specifically address the issue of barriers on entry of women to places of
worship. In fact the issue of restrictions on entry of women at the
international level has not been highlighted at the international level and there
is inadequate questioning of this form of discrimination.
The
exclusion from places of worship on grounds of gender continues to be in place
in a number of places of worship across the country. Though, as previously
discussed, such practices do not confirm with the Constitution and the state is
under an obligation to prohibit them, the Indian state has made no effort to
change these customs or introduce a new legislation to dismantle the barriers
on entry and uphold the Constitutional principles. The failure of the
legislature and executive to shape policy on these issues has compelled the
judiciary to undertake the task of dismantling the barriers to entry of women.
The Sabarimala verdict is a stepping stone in the quest of justice in a patriarchal
society. However, quite the reverse of what should have been a
reasonable outcome of the judgment in Sabarimala, the Government of India
favours the continuance of customs which ban entry to women and arguably an
environment is created by the State for such bans to thrive. The Prime Minister
of India Narendra Modi himself came out in support of continuing the ban on
entry of women at Sabarimala citing tradition, adding that alteration of such
tradition by the State would be religious interference.[61]
Likewise, while the Parliament should be having discussions on enacting a law
that would dismantle barriers on entry of women to places of worship across the
country, the
discussions in and outside the Parliament revolves around bringing a law to
protect the barriers on entry and overturning the judgment of the Supreme Court
in Sabarimala.[62]
The researcher asserts to protect the barriers under law would be a great
folly, particularly given that the ban on entry of women does not conform to
the human rights and is not essential to religion. Even if assumed to be essential to religion,
the stand of the Government that customary prohibition on entry of women is
immutable is erroneous as social injustices have always sought refuge in
tradition.[63] While traditions need to be
persevered and celebrated, women must not be dis-privileged in the process. Moreover it is offensive that in a
constitutional order based on equality, traditions
founded on a social hierarchy and gender stereotyping could be termed as
‘immovable’ or ‘eternal’ by the State.
The deep
roots of religion and culture in the populace’s consciousness which manifested
itself in the form of resistance in Kerela subsequent to the Supreme Court
verdict outlawing prohibition on entry of women, is brought to the forefront to
criticise the verdict and also to warn against interference with tradition.
However the researcher asserts that resistance should not be a reason to continue a
discriminatory and exclusionary practice. History has witnessed that any break away from
age old traditions was met with resistance. In India ban on Sati, dowry and
child marriage; reforms to Hindu personal laws have all been greeted with
resistance from masses.[64] However the will of the State ensured that
reforms were carried out. During the reformation of the Hindu family law and
also while opening of temples to Dalits the Government faced nationwide protests but the determination of
the leadership ensured that reform process remained unhindered.[65] It
is submitted that the current leadership must learn from the stewardship of
Nehru and Ambedkar and rise above the vote bank. Very often Mount Athos and
Okinoshima are also brought in the discussion to support the traditional ban on
women[66],
the researcher however strongly disagrees as violation of rights of women
can-not be justified on grounds that the same happens somewhere else in the
world.[67]
Moreover at the international level India has been a flag-bearer of rights of
women and it must set the right example for the world as regards entry of women
to places of worship.
In
absence of the Government support to judicial rulings, ringing the death knell
of such exclusion across the country is impossible. The Indian society is in
midst of a women empowerment movement and the researcher asserts that there is
no better time to dismantle the barriers on entry of women to places of
worship. The judiciary has played the role of initiator of rights in the case
of of exclusion of women from places of worship and it is time that State at
least comes to embrace the role of an enabler of the rights of women and fulfil
its Constitutional obligation by abolishing barriers on entry of women. One
obvious recommendation is the bringing in of a central law criminalising the
ban on entry of women to places of worship. In a diverse country like India it is very difficult to
ensure that the entire society is satisfied with the reforms. However the state
must irrespective contemplate reforms.
Though the Courts gave not urged the Government to enact legislation as
regards entry of women, the researcher asserts that a law abolishing the
exclusion of women is the need of the hour. With at least three petitions as
regards entry of women pending in the higher judiciary and a review petition,
it is far more convenient and useful to have a law abolishing the restrictions
on grounds of gender than a case by case delivery of justice by an already
overburdened judicial system. There is also a need to
strengthen the individual rights tradition in matters of religion.
It
is important to note that banning exclusionary practice is only the tip of the
challenge as the real challenge will be to implement such a ban and usher in a
change in the popular consciousness. The lower castes who were prohibited entry to temples
continue to face discrimination despite the ban being abolished by law and
their discrimination criminalized.[68] The carrying of
purification ritual after two women entered the Sabarimala temple also
unleashes the challenge.[69] However that is not to
say that change is impossible as the society has evolved and many practices,
for example sati and child marriage, that were once considered sacred are now
acknowledged to be social evils. Likewise ban on polygamy, widow remarriage and
women’s inheritance rights under Hindu family laws have been embraced over a
period of time. An essential pre-requisite however is to create a social and political
environment for women to demand their rights and equality. Effectively combating exclusionary practices
requires the state to take a series of measures. Ideally these include a
coherent rights based policy, adopting legislation and setting up bodies. What
is apparent is the need for concerted effort to address structural factors whch
perpetuates discrimination against women. Though gender equality in matters of
religion cannot be attained over night, it is hoped that the Constitutional
morality will prevail and all barriers on entry of women would have been dismantled
in near future. The fight to enter places of worship is
only the first step in attaining equality in matters of religion and not the
ultimate goal.
[2]UN Human Rights
Committee (HRC), CCPR
General Comment No. 28: Article 3 (The Equality of Rights Between Men and
Women), 29 March 2000, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.10,) PARA5.
[3] Dianne
Otto, ‘Women’s Rights’ in Daniel
Moeckli, Sangeeta Shah and Sandesh Sivakumaran (eds), International Human
RightsLaw (3rd edn, Oxford
University Press 2014) 310.
[11] Nar Hari
Sastri And Others vs Shri Badrinath Temple Committee, 1952 AIR 245para 17.
[15] Sarkin,
Jeremy, and Mark Koenig. 'Ending Caste Discrimination in India: Human Rights
and the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) Individuals and Groups from
Discrimination at the Domestic and International Levels', The George
Washington International Law Review, vol.
41/no. 3, (2010), pp. 541.
[19]
Gautam Bhatia, “Equal Moral Membership:
Naz Foundation and the Refashioning of Equality”(2017) 1(2) Indian Law Review
118. < https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2980862> accessed 27 July 2019.
[21] Article 17
reads as: “Abolition of Untouchability. “Untouchability” is abolished and its
practice in any form is forbidden. The enforcement of any disability arising
out of “Untouchability” shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law.”
[23] In the
social hierarchy of a Hindu society, those placed at the bottom were considered
impure and polluted. Due to this reason they were socially excluded and contact
with them was forbidden.
[32] Satya
Prasoon, ‘The Sabarimala case has the potential to be a Constitutional
watershed’ (The Wire 7 November 2016) < https://thewire.in/law/sabrimala-temple-case-constitutional-watershed/amp/>
accessed on 19 August 2019.
[35] Though the
Constitution explicitly mandates opening of Hindu places of worship to all, it
is silent on opening of Muslim places of worship. It is pertinent to mention
that this sets the judgment on a different footing from the others as in those
judgments as Constitutional mandate and legislative mandates were used to open
temples to women.
[36] Though the
Supreme Court delivered it’s judgment in the case, it is now looking into the
Review Petitions for which hearing has been concluded but judgment is yet to be
delivered. Over 54 Review Petitions were filed under Article 137 of the
Constitution and though the researcher is critical of the review the same falls
beyond the scope of the research.
[37]S. Mahendran v. Travancore Devaswom
Board, AIR 1993 Ker 42. < https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1915943/>
[38] Para 7.1“The right
to move the Supreme Court under Article 32 for violation of Fundamental Rights,
must be based on a pleading that the Petitioners’ personal rights to worship in
this Temple have been violated.’
[39] Prakhar
Singh and Pragya Roy, ‘Questioning the dissenting voice in Sabarimala’ (EPW
Engage 5 November 2018) <
https://www.epw.in/engage/article/questioning-dissenting-voice-sabarimala>
accessed on 7 August 2019.
[42]
To quote the Chief Justice, ‘“Let a
Muslim woman come and challenge it.”
‘Shamani
Joshi, ‘India’s
Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Allow Muslim Women Entry Into Mosques’ (The Vice
9 July 2019) < https://www.vice.com/en_in/article/evywwm/indias-supreme-court-rejects-plea-to-allow-muslim-women-entry-into-mosques>
[44] Ronojoy
Sen, ‘The Doctrine of Essential Practices: The Judges shape a Rational
Hinduism’ in ‘Articles of faith: Religion, Secularism, and the Indian Supreme
Court’ (Oxford University Press 2010).
[48] Raghav
Pandey, ‘Dissecting the Triple Takaq judgment’ (Daily Pioneer 7 September 2017)
< https://www.dailypioneer.com/2017/columnists/dissecting-the
triple-talaq-judgmnent.html>
[50] Murali
Krishan, ‘Question of
Law: Essential
Religious Practices Test a “problem
with our jurisprudence”, DY
Chandrachud J.’ (Bar and
Bench 26 July 2019) <https://barandbench.com/question-of-law-essential-religious-practices-test-a-problem-in-our-jurisprudence-dy-chandrachud-j/>
accessed on 7 August 2019.
[51] Elizabeth
Seshadari, ‘The Sabarimala judgment; Reformative and disruptive’(The Hindu
Centre for politics and public policy 5 October 2019).
[52] Binoo K
John, ‘When
the first women climb the 18 steps to the sanctum sanctorum, it will be a climb
out of medievalism.’ (News 18 , 30 September 2018)
[53] Nigam Nuggehalli, ‘Pragmatism bows
to Justice: In Sabarimala as in Brown v. Board of Education’ ( The Wire 6
Novemeber 2018) < https://thewire.in/rights/sabarimala-row-judicial-rulings-cannot-consider-pragmatism-or-community-interests>
accessed online 1 August 2019.
[54] Sowmya Sivkumar, ‘Sabarimala:
Deities will cannot trump the Constituiton on the Right to equality’ (The Wire
30 July 2018) < https://thewire.in/law/sabarimala-is-temple-entry-a-destination>
accessed on 8 July 2019.
[55] Aneesha
Mathur, ‘Sabarimala stand on women
and untouchability not the same, Supreme Court told’ (India Today 6 February
2019).
[57] ‘ Women who entered Sabarimala
thrown out of husband’s house’ (India Today 28 January 2018) < https://www.indiatoday.in/newsmo/video/woman-who-entered-sabarimala-temple-thrown-out-of-husbands-house-newsmo-1447852-2019-01-28>
accessed on 6 july 2019.
[59] Amy Kazim,
‘India’s temple battle epitomises the struggle between faith and law’
(Financial Times 3 December 2018).
[60] Dianne
Otto, ‘Women’s Rights’ in Daniel
Moeckli, Sangeeta Shah and Sandesh Sivakumaran (eds), International Human
RightsLaw (3rd edn, Oxford
University Press 2014) 310.
[61] Smita Prakash, ‘Triple talaq is a
matter of gender equality, Sabarimala is tradition: Narendra Modi’ (The Hindu 1
January 2019) < https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/triple-talaq-is-a-matter-of-gender-equality-sabarimala-is-tradition-narendra-modi/article25881596.ece>
accessed on 9 August 2019.
[62] A Member of Parliament from Kerala
even introduced a private member bill titled ‘Sabarimala
Sreedharma Sastha Temple (Special Provisions) Bill’ to revert back the status
quo of the ban and safeguard the Sabarimala customs and rituals. Press trust of
India, ‘UDF MP introduces bill to preserve Sabarimala rituals’(India Today 21
June 2019) < https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/udf-mp-introduces-bill-preserve-sabarimala-rituals-1553886-2019-06-21>
Special Correspondent,
‘Only a law to undo SC verdict will pacify the protesters’ (The Hindu 6
February 2019) < https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/only-a-law-to-undo-sc-verdict-on-sabarimala-will-pacify-protesters/article26187579.ece>
accessed on 5 June 2019.
[63] Sati, slavery, devdasi, dowry,
triple talaq, child marriage were all justified in the name of religion.
[64] Akshay
Shnadilya, ‘Arguing for a Uniform Civil Code in India in light of Gender
discriminatory practices under Muslim Personal Law’ ( Researchgate March 2017) file:///C:/Users/user/AppData/Local/Packages/Microsoft.MicrosoftEdge_8wekyb3d8bbwe/TempState/Downloads/BhattacharyaShandilya2016ArguingforaUniformCivilCodeinLightofGenderDiscriminatoryPracticesUnderMuslimPersonalLawNUALSL.J.%20(1).pdf
accessed on 19 June 2019.
[65] Law
commission para1.8, Anant Ramachandran, ‘ Hindu temples must be open to all’
(Huff Post 4 April 2019) <
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/hindu-temples-must-be-ope_b_9604546?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAKfVQYIOD9Cdv3yEXFIu8AQX6HOnPwSWFYJQuZpihqfzO3bvibH-kV54cg3Y_qffIbBbmOMD8t1ixHukAW-Q6TBvme7cl3FXr7k23KM0rAf2hNaZjM4_rhroXVllVLRGbabevx69kJtl-KxOqbsDKmFp_KMCCjYyVRAnjoTybB1N>
Accessed on 7 july 2019.
[66] Swami
Venkatraman, ‘If Supreme Court has to intervene
at Sabarimala, it must do so for all religions’ (The Print 4 February 2019)
< https://theprint.in/opinion/if-supreme-court-has-to-intervene-at-sabarimala-it-must-do-so-for-all-religions/152330/> accessed on June 15
2019.
[67] The bans on
the other two places though of course violative of women’s rights but they are
also a lot more complex as compared to the situation in India. For example
Greece has reservations to Treaties explicitly protecting the practices at
Mount Athos which has a special status within Greece.
[68] Even now the dalits are forbidden
entry to many temples and instances where disobedience is punshed with torture,
beationgs and ven death are common.
MC Rajan, ‘80 years since Travancore's temple
entry, Dalits forced to fight for right to pray’ ( The New Indian Express 6
September
2016)
,S Senthalir, ‘Dalit woman denied temple
entry, incident goes viral on social media’( The Hindu 1 May 2018) < https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/dalit-woman-denied-temple-entry-incident-goes-viral-on-social-media/article23740714.ece> accessed on 1 JULY 2019.,
[69]‘ Priests sprinkle holy water, carry
out ‘purification’ inside Sabarimala temple’(News Nation 2 january 2019) <
https://www.newsnation.in/india//news-nation-exclusive-sabarimala-priests-sprinkle-holy-water-carry-out-purification-inside-lord-ayappa-temple-watch-video-article-210392.html>
accessed online 9 August 2019.
Article Information
OPENING DOORWAYS TO PLACES OF WORSHIP: GENDER EQUALITY AND INDIAN JURISPRUDENCE
Authors: DR. AASTHA AGNIHOTRI
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2023/10/27
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.