SC's Sabarimala temple verdict!

In Sabarimala temple in Kerala entry of women of ‘menstrual age’ (10 to 50yrs) was banned since long. Supreme Court in its recent majority (4-1) historic verdict lifted this age-old ban to allow women of all ages to enter the shrine. However, one of the judges, who is incidentally a woman judge, opposed the majority view and opined SC shouldn’t interfere in the religious practice of the temple and ban should be allowed to continue. In fact, menstruation is only a natural physiological phenomenon like many other biological processes in human body. So menstrual age shouldn’t  stand as a hindrance in the entry to a shrine and offering worship to the deity. The ban infringes on the constitutional right to equality of women either.

The SC verdict, however, triggered mixed reactions among people. Most of the people have welcomed this judgement whole heartedly including Kerala govt. But a section of people vehemently protested against this verdict. They consider it an unwelcome and unnecessary intervention of judiciary in the age-old religious tradition of Sabarimal temple, although they have no logical or scientific standing either. It is purely based on faith and unwavering adherence to age-old tradition. What’s most interesting, almost 5000 women devotees of the temple participated in the protest rally against SC verdict. Even a review petition has been filed against this judgement at the Apex court. Incidentally, it’s nothing new that SC has stepped in to alter the traditional practice being followed by temple management in the greater interest of people at large. For instance, SC has asked to allow non Hindus to enter Shri Jagannath temple at Puri where only Hindus are eligible to enter the shrine. Interestingly, traditionalists everywhere oppose such a move and tussle between tradition and rationality  continues.