New Delhi, Sep 28 (PTI) Two senior lawyers, appointed by the Supreme Court as amicus curiae to assist it in deciding the sensitive issue of ban on entry of women of a particular age group in Kerala’s Sabarimala temple, took diametrically opposite stands. Also Read - COVID-19 Lockdown: Migrant Workers Take to Streets in Kerala, Police Urge Them to 'go Back'
Noted senior lawyer Raju Ramachandran took a progressive modern view and supported the PIL of Indian Young Lawyers Association, saying that women have “universal and legal right” to enter into the temple, which is a public shrine. Also Read - Kerala Reports First Coronavirus Death. A Reason to Worry? | 5 Points
“It is the freedom of conscience and the right to practise and profess their religion which is recognized under Article 25 of the Constitution of India… encompasses the liberty of belief, faith and worship, pithily declared as a constitutional vision in the Preamble to the Constitution of India,” Ramachandran had submitted before the five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra. Also Read - Kabul Gurudwara Attack May be Linked to Kerala, Indian Security Agencies Eyeing ISKP Kasaragod Module
However, another senior lawyer K Ramamoorthy, assisting the bench as an amicus curiae, had a different take over the controversial issue.
He maintained that in all prominent Hindu temples in India there had been some religious practices based on beliefs which are essential part of the Hindu religion as considered by people for a long time.
Batting for preservation of centuries-old practice banning women of certain age group, Rammoorthy had said that the devotees of Ayyappa form a separate religious denomination and hence protected under the fundamental rights governing religious freedom.
The repression of women under the garb of “physiological factors” cannot be legitimised and patriarchy in religion cannot “trump over” devotion, the Supreme Court ruled Friday as it threw open the closed gates of the historic Sabarimala temple for women of all age groups.
The historic verdict, which would add force to clamour for equality for women of other religions, extensively dealt with Article 25 (1) which was referred to by the Temple Board and the devotees in support of the practice of barring entry of girls and women between the menstrual age of 10 and 50 years.
This is published unedited from the PTI feed.