Finance

Sabarimala Temple issue referred to SC constitution bench

Sabarimala Temple issue referred to SC constitution bench

The bench of Justice Dipak Misra, Justice R. Banumathi and Justice Ashok Bhushan had earlier reserved its verdict on referring the case to a constitution bench.

When the lord himself says don't allow access to women in the age of 10 and 50, how can the court go into that question.

On November 7 past year, the Kerala government had informed the apex court that it favoured the entry of women of all age groups in the historic Sabarimala temple.

Welcoming the Supreme Court referring to a Constitution Bench the issue of whether a ban on entry of women aged between 10-50 years in Kerala's Sabarimala temple was discriminatory, Travancore Devasom Board (TDB) president Prayar Gopalakrishnan on Friday said even if the court allows them, devout and decent women won't come to the temple.

The Indian Young Lawyers' Association filed a petition in the SC challenging the ban on entry of women in the Sabarimala temple. The Sabarimala temple restricts women aged between 10 to 50 years from taking the journey to Sabarimala - which implies women are prohibited from making the hard trek to the place of worship. The Constitution of India guarantees this right too.

The five-judge Constitution bench will have to deal with the questions raised by the court.

On November 7 previous year, the Kerala Government has announced in the court the women of all ages are permitted inside the historic Sabarimala temple. He slammed at the critics saying, "Don't try to make Sabarimala Thailand".

He said that there was nothing personal in his comment adding that both safety and rituals are equally important.

Another women rights activist, Saswati Ghosh also pinned her faith on the apex court's decision. The coalition government, which returned to power in May, told the Supreme Court in July that it will not oppose the temple ban on women.

It is also to be decided whether Rule 3 (b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Worship Act violates Article 14.