As the Ayyappa temple is about to reopen today after a scheduled recess, there is a lot of tension not only in and around Sabarimala but in entire Kerala. Could this imbroglio have been avoided?
In the year 1991, the Kerala High Court decided that the traditions of the temple could not be trifled with. After many years, the Supreme Court took up a case seeking permission for all women to enter the temple on the plea of gender equality.
The courts in a secular country ought to avoid pronouncing on religious issues as much as possible. In order to side-step the issue and in view of preponderant aversion even among women in Kerala for allowing all women to enter this particular temple, the right thing for the Supreme Court would have been to get the views of aggrieved party. The aggrieved party is the woman of Kerala and not the publicity-seeking activist-tourist-provocateur. A referendum among women of Kerala should have been ordered.
The Supreme Court did not take this sensible decision because it did not have the benefit of having any judge who understands the traditions of this particular temple on the Bench. Governments - centre and the state - could have suggested this fair and logical step. Unfortunately, even the Supreme Court is not free from the desire to look like a champion of women's rights. If the SC is really a champion of women's rights, it would have opted for the referendum route.
A question might arise as to whether our Constitution provides for a referendum. The court could have relied on its contemporary fetish for 'constitutional morality' and 'silence of the constitution'. It is an irony that the only female judge on the Bench alone could understand the relevance of tradition while ostensibly enforcing gender-equality.
In the year 1991, the Kerala High Court decided that the traditions of the temple could not be trifled with. After many years, the Supreme Court took up a case seeking permission for all women to enter the temple on the plea of gender equality.
The courts in a secular country ought to avoid pronouncing on religious issues as much as possible. In order to side-step the issue and in view of preponderant aversion even among women in Kerala for allowing all women to enter this particular temple, the right thing for the Supreme Court would have been to get the views of aggrieved party. The aggrieved party is the woman of Kerala and not the publicity-seeking activist-tourist-provocateur. A referendum among women of Kerala should have been ordered.
The Supreme Court did not take this sensible decision because it did not have the benefit of having any judge who understands the traditions of this particular temple on the Bench. Governments - centre and the state - could have suggested this fair and logical step. Unfortunately, even the Supreme Court is not free from the desire to look like a champion of women's rights. If the SC is really a champion of women's rights, it would have opted for the referendum route.
A question might arise as to whether our Constitution provides for a referendum. The court could have relied on its contemporary fetish for 'constitutional morality' and 'silence of the constitution'. It is an irony that the only female judge on the Bench alone could understand the relevance of tradition while ostensibly enforcing gender-equality.
No comments:
Post a Comment