The issue of women’s entry into places of worship has been a contentious topic across various cultures and religions, sparking debates centered on gender equality, religious tradition, and fundamental human rights. From temples to mosques, churches to synagogues, the question of whether women should have equal access to sacred spaces has been a focal point of societal discourse. While some argue for the preservation of longstanding traditions and religious norms, others advocate for reform to ensure equal rights and opportunities for women in matters of faith and spirituality. This complex and multifaceted issue touches upon deeply ingrained cultural beliefs, legal considerations, and the evolving role of women in religious practices worldwide.
Issues of women entry to place of worship
The shrine at Sabarimala is an ancient temple of Ayyappan also known as Sasta and Dharmasasta. Lord Ayyappan is worshipped as a ‘Naishtika Bramhachari’ or a celibate for life. Therefore, as per a notification by the Devaswom Board that manages the temple, women belonging to the menstruating age are not permitted to enter the temple.
Supreme Court Verdict on Sabarimala (2018):
Decision Overview:
- The 2018 verdict by the Supreme Court paved the way for women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala Ayyappa temple in Kerala.
- Constitution Bench and Majority Opinion:
- A five-judge constitution bench, led by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, delivered the 4:1 majority verdict.
- The majority held that barring women from the shrine amounted to gender discrimination and violated the rights of Hindu women.
Religion and Gender Discrimination:
- The court asserted that religion serves as a way of life linking individuals to divinity.
- Discrimination based on gender, especially due to physiological reasons like menstruation, was deemed unacceptable.
Equality in Devotion:
- Chief Justice Misra emphasized that devotion should not be subject to discrimination, and patriarchal notions should not override equality in devotion.
Judicial Concurrence and Dissent:
- Justices R F Nariman and D Y Chandrachud concurred with the Chief Justice and Justice A M Khanwilkar.
- Justice Indu Malhotra, the sole woman judge on the bench, dissented, emphasizing that religious matters with deep connotations should be left untouched for maintaining a secular atmosphere.
Support for Women’s Entry:
- Constitutional Violation: Preventing women’s entry into places of worship contradicts constitutional provisions: Articles 14, 15, 19, and 25, addressing equality, gender-based discrimination, freedom of movement, and freedom of religion.
- Fundamental Rights Breach: Excluding women from the inner sanctum infringes on their fundamental right under Article 25(1) to freely practice their religion.
- Limits of Religious Autonomy: While Article 26(1) grants the right to manage religious affairs, it should not override the individual’s right to practice their religion, as guaranteed by the Constitution.
- Patriarchy vs. Religion: Restrictions on women’s entry are often rooted in patriarchy rather than religious principles, emphasizing the imposition of gender norms.
- Discrimination and Equality: Banning women’s entry is discriminatory, undermining the notion of equality in the eyes of God, as every individual should have equal access to places of worship.
- Historical Precedents: Historical reforms, such as the abolition of Sati, temple entry proclamations, and the end of untouchability, have been achieved through judicial or legislative interventions.
- Shani Shingnapur Temple Case: The Shani Shingnapur temple, which restricted women for over 400 years, allowed women to pray inside after a court order in April 2016, indicating a precedent for revisiting such norms.
Opposition to Women’s Entry:
- Preserving ‘Purity’: Ban on women entry is justified as a measure to preserve ‘purity,’ particularly during menstruation, considered a period of ritual impurity.
- Deity’s Celibate Nature: Opposition emphasizes that the prohibition stems from Lord Ayyappa’s identity as a celibate deity (Naishtika Bramhachari), rather than being rooted in misogyny.
- Distinct Religious Cult: Sabarimala is seen as a distinct religious cult with its own set of rules and practices, which should be respected as part of its unique religious identity.
- Exclusion from Article 15: Arguments highlight that Article 15 of the Constitution, ensuring non-discrimination, doesn’t apply to religious institutions. It doesn’t mention access to public temples, unlike places such as hotels and shops.
- Religious Freedom Assertion: Opponents claim protection under Article 25(1), asserting their right to freely profess and practice religion, which includes following specific rituals and customs.
- Limits of Article 25(2): Reference to Article 25(2) is made to emphasize that it pertains only to secular aspects, focusing on social issues rather than gender or religious-specific matters.
Key Supreme Court Judgments on Religious Practices:
Ananda Marga Case (2004):
- The Supreme Court ruled that the public performance of the Tandava dance, though mentioned as essential in the holy book of Ananda Marga sect, was not inherently crucial to their religion.
Shirur Mutt Case:
- Acknowledging the autonomy of religious denominations, the Supreme Court emphasized that organizations have the right to determine essential rites and ceremonies without external interference.
- The court also highlighted that state intervention is permissible when religious practices conflict with public order, health, or morality. Additionally, interference is justified when practices take on economic, commercial, or political characteristics despite being associated with religion.
FAQs
1. Why are women often restricted from entering certain places of worship?
- Answer: Many places of worship cite traditional or religious beliefs to justify the exclusion of women. These beliefs often stem from historical interpretations or cultural norms that have persisted over time.
2. What are the main arguments against women’s entry into places of worship?
- Answer: Opponents of women’s entry into places of worship often argue that it disrupts the sanctity or purity of the space. They may also cite religious texts or interpretations that they believe support the exclusion of women.
3. Is the restriction of women from places of worship a universal phenomenon?
- Answer: No, it varies widely across different religions and even within denominations. While some religious traditions have strict rules regarding women’s entry into certain spaces, others are more inclusive and allow equal access to all worshippers.
4. How do proponents of gender equality respond to these restrictions?
- Answer: Advocates for gender equality often challenge these restrictions on the grounds of human rights and equality. They argue that denying women access to places of worship perpetuates discrimination and reinforces patriarchal structures.
5. Are there movements or initiatives working to change these practices?
- Answer: Yes, there are various movements, both within religious communities and in broader society, advocating for the equal treatment of women in places of worship. These efforts include legal challenges, grassroots activism, and dialogue within religious institutions to promote inclusivity and gender equality.
In case you still have your doubts, contact us on 9811333901.
For UPSC Prelims Resources, Click here
For Daily Updates and Study Material:
Join our Telegram Channel – Edukemy for IAS
- 1. Learn through Videos – here
- 2. Be Exam Ready by Practicing Daily MCQs – here
- 3. Daily Newsletter – Get all your Current Affairs Covered – here
- 4. Mains Answer Writing Practice – here
