THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: Taking into consideration ‘past experiences and responses of women devotees’, the Left government has modified its earlier position favouring women entry to Sabarimala, ahead of the crucial assembly election. Keeping in mind the severe backlash following its decision to implement the SC verdict allowing women of all ages to enter the hill shrine, the state government in its affidavit -– submitted before the Supreme Court on Saturday – stopped short of making any direct statement either favouring or opposing women entry.
In its response to the Apex Court’s queries, the government referred to its 2007 affidavit and stated that opinions of social reformers and religious scholars should be taken to arrive at a decision. Apparently referring to the severe backlash in the polls and state-wide protests, the government made it explicitly clear that “previous experience in the matter of Sabarimala shrine and the responses of devotees including women would support” its submission.
Responding to the SC query on scope and extent of judicial review with regard to the religious practice, the state said: “Any judicial review of any religious practice followed for so many years and connected with the beliefs and values accepted by the people must be after wide consultations with, and after soliciting views of eminent religious scholars and reputed social reformers of that religion.”
Notably the affidavit did not stress on the earlier argument that ‘nobody should be prohibited from their right to worship’. The Left government came to the decision to take a neutral position after the CPM secretariat felt that the party should take a strategic position in view of the approaching elections. The CPM thus decided not to respond directly to the issue of women entry and shift the responsibility.
To the SC query on whether a person who doesn’t belong to a religious denomination can question a practice in that denomination or religious group through a PIL, the government opined that under usual circumstances there’s no reason for someone outside the religion to question a practice. However, if there’s grave human rights violation in the name of a religious practice, even a person who doesn’t belong to that religious denomination or group can question the same.
“The essentiality of a religious practice has to be primarily tested with regard to the tenets of that religion.. In deciding the question as to whether a given religious practice is an integral part of the religion or not, the test normally should be as to whether it is regarded as such by the community following the religion or not,” said the affidavit.
The state also pointed out that Article 25 (2)(b) enables the state to make laws for social reform and for throwing open Hindu religious institutions of public character to all sections and classes of Hindus. Such a law can be with regard to Hindu religious institutions of public character, inclusive of religious institutions of public character of denominations or sections.
The affidavit was filed by Nishe Rajen Shonker, standing counsel for Kerala, after consultations with Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta, Advocate General K Gopalakrishna Kurup and Special Government Pleader V Manu.