The Union Government has filed a written submission in the Supreme Court, expressing its support for the traditional restrictions on women's entry to the Sabarimala Ayyappan Temple in Kerala. In its submission, the Centre contended that the Supreme Court's 2018 verdict, which allowed women of all ages to enter the temple, was based on an assumption of "men superior," thereby misinterpreting the unique nature of the deity and the temple's practices. This development comes as the apex court continues to deliberate on a batch of review petitions against its previous ruling.

The Centre's affidavit argues that the prohibition on women aged 10 to 50 years from entering the temple is not a form of discrimination based on gender but rather an intrinsic aspect of the deity Lord Ayyappan's "Naishtika Brahmacharya" (eternal celibacy). The government's stance underscores that the restriction is specific to the temple's centuries-old customs and traditions, which are rooted in the unique spiritual character of the deity rather than any societal bias against women.

The submission elaborated that the 2018 judgment, which viewed the restriction as discriminatory, failed to appreciate the fundamental nature of the practice. It asserted that the court's earlier ruling assumed an inherent superiority of men, an assumption which the Centre claims is unfounded and misrepresents the spiritual context of the Sabarimala tradition. The Centre emphasized that the traditions governing the Sabarimala temple do not stem from a notion of female inferiority, but rather from the specific vow of celibacy observed by Lord Ayyappan.

  • Key points from the Centre's submission include:
    • The practice is linked to the "Naishtika Brahmacharya" of Lord Ayyappan.
    • It is characterized as a sacred tradition and not based on any notion of inferiority or superiority.
    • The 2018 verdict's premise of "men superior" is contested by the Centre.
    • The Centre states its intention is to protect traditional religious practices, consistent with constitutional principles of religious freedom.

The 2018 Supreme Court judgment, delivered by a 4:1 majority, had overturned a decades-old ban, declaring it unconstitutional and discriminatory. Justice Indu Malhotra, the sole dissenting judge in that verdict, had argued that courts should not interfere with essential religious practices of a faith unless they are overtly oppressive. Her dissent highlighted the importance of respecting religious freedom and traditions.

Following the 2018 verdict, a multitude of review petitions were filed, leading the Supreme Court to refer the matter to a larger nine-judge Constitution bench in November 2019. This larger bench is tasked with examining broader questions related to the interplay between religious freedom and equality, not limited solely to the Sabarimala case but encompassing similar issues across various faiths. The questions include the scope of "essential religious practices," the constitutional morality doctrine, and the extent to which courts can intervene in religious matters.

The Centre's latest submission provides a fresh perspective for the ongoing legal deliberations, firmly backing the preservation of the temple's traditional practices. As the nine-judge Constitution bench continues its hearings, the arguments presented by various stakeholders, including the Union Government, will be crucial in shaping the final verdict, which is expected to have significant implications for religious freedom, gender equality, and the interpretation of constitutional rights in India. The outcome will likely influence how courts address similar conflicts between tradition and fundamental rights in the future.