Eiffel Tower and Indian Orthodoxy in the Shadow of the Supreme Court’s Pending Sabarimala Verdict

ON THE NEW YEAR OF 2019, from the northern tip of Kerala to the southern end of Kerala stretching over 620 kilometres, half a million women of Kerala stood holding their hands as a human chain which was described as ‘Mahila Mathilugal’ (‘women’s wall’) demanding gender equality which also wanted access to the Sabarimala temple to worship the Lord Ayyappa who is adorning the temple. It was stated that the women during their menstruation cycle are not allowed to enter Sabarimala because it is considered menstruation will pollute and disturb the celibacy of the Lord who is considered as a Brahmachari.

The women were demanding implementation of the judgment of the Supreme Court delivered on September 28, 2018 which ruled that keeping the menstruating women out considering that they were impure and had the effect of polluting the place was nothing but untouchability hit by Article 17 of the Constitution. The news of the women's human chain got hardly reported in spite of the fact that it was a unique agitation involving several thousands women. 

The majority of the five-judge bench held:

“Article 17 is the constitutional promise of equality and justice to those who have remained at the lowest rung of a traditional belief system founded in graded inequality… It has been placed on a constitutional pedestal of enforceable fundamental rights, beyond being only a directive principle, for two reasons. First, “untouchability” is violative of the basic rights of socially backward individuals and their dignity. Second, the Framers believed that the abolition of “untouchability” is a constitutional imperative to establish an equal social order. Its presence together and on an equal footing with other fundamental rights, was designed to “give vulnerable people the power to achieve collective good”. Article 17 is a reflection of the transformative ideal of the Constitution, which gives expression to the aspirations of socially disempowered individuals and communities, and provides a moral framework for radical social transformation.” 

But the demand of these women was never implemented in spite of the fact that there was a judgment in their favour and the State was supposed to implement the order under Article 144 of the Constitution. However, what prevented them was that a Review Petition was not only entertained, but also referred to a larger bench of 9 judges which took almost 8 years to hear the case for days together, whose verdict is awaited. However, what was shocking was that the bench never fixed any time limit for arguments of the counsels and they went on for more than three weeks. More shocking was that the counsels were willing to put forth arguments which were based on ancient texts and discarded over the years. Some arguments sounded similar to the ones which were advocated before the Privy Council in the beginning of the 20th century about the time tested practice and belief of the Hindu sect which should not be altered by any notions invented over the period.