Introduction
Womens constitutional right to worship lord ayyappa can be protected, only by following the tradition and rules for worship. By protecting the tradition the law can protect the constitutional right of women to worship the lord by following the dharma. By giving in to activists and non believers' interpretation, honorable court will be "taking away" the traditional and believing womens' right to worship. Hence the current judgement is against Article 25 where women and everyone have a freedom to practice religion.
By nullifying the sanctity of the tradition, and allowing non believers to take over the faith, the Article 25 is not upheld and the traditional believing men and womens' "freedom of religion" is broken.
Arguments
Verbatim : 25. Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion
(1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion
1. Article 25: Right to practice religion
1. Article 25: Right to practice religion
Religion for sabarimala includes the "entire" practice of undertaking the 41 day vratham as a "family".
In hinduism we are not a congregatory religion. Our worship starts the moment a man or child or old woman in the home undertakes the vratham. For 41 days , entire family, including the age group women in the house who are not travelling to the physical location. are undertaking "worship" by contributing to whosoever is undertaking vratham.
The women fill the irumudi with their prayers, and pray for the safe journey , good darsanam and for their family to be blessed by lord ayyappa. This is their means to worship the lord of sabarimala.
By breaking the tradition, their right to practice ones religion under Article 25 of indian constitution is being snatched away. This is since the moment the practice and tradition of vratham is taken away as a stipulation or rule, then the sanctity, the glory, the importance, the weightage , the sacredness and the potency of the vratham is being mocked at, and rendered 'unimportant' or 'unnecessary'.
Traditional worshippers would believe the sanctity of sabarimala to be impacted as a result of breaking of tradition and hence the religious practice itself is being diluted the moment the temple makes it non mandatory. The temple itself is an inseparable part of the entire sequence of worship, and without the vratham, irumudi and mode of worship, the "religious" character of the institution is altered, thereby the practice can no more be undertaken in its wholeness. As a result my right to practice is challenged by breaking the tradition, since the practice is possible only when the "means to practice" is available, and the strict observance of the rule by temple authority and communities collective belief, is the rule to which a devotee subjects himself or herself to, which itself is the means to practice.
You cannot ban a mantra, or a mala and say you are upholding the religious practice of Japa. You cannot say that I am allowing the blacksmith or the weaver to ply his trade by taking away all his tools.
Same way the rules, the vrathams are the mode of worship, and by making it "any way goes", the very means is being diluted and washed away. By killing the means the very end is rendered unreachable.
2. Article 25: Right to profess and propagate religion
If the temple starts allowing anyone without any rules, the believers and followers will see their traditional practice and its effect being diluted, and the dream of seeing lord ayyappa after the entire family undertakes rigourous vratham of 41 days, is being mocked at, as other people are coming in without any such rule at all, and without any rigourous penance. Essentially both followers and non believers will get "divya darisanam", mocking at the efforts taken by the followers and their families.
This is taking away the right under Article 25 to profess and propagate ones religion. The essential element of vratham involved in the mode of religious practice is being flouted. It is like claiming that sanyasis can be married, church fathers can be married, sisters in church can be married, and those religious institutions should accept that. The essential character of the religuous practice must be protected by stipulation for it to survive as an article of faith.
By breaking the tradition, their right to practice ones religion under Article 25 of indian constitution is being snatched away. This is since the moment the practice and tradition of vratham is taken away as a stipulation or rule, then the sanctity, the glory, the importance, the weightage , the sacredness and the potency of the vratham is being mocked at, and rendered 'unimportant' or 'unnecessary'.
Traditional worshippers would believe the sanctity of sabarimala to be impacted as a result of breaking of tradition and hence the religious practice itself is being diluted the moment the temple makes it non mandatory. The temple itself is an inseparable part of the entire sequence of worship, and without the vratham, irumudi and mode of worship, the "religious" character of the institution is altered, thereby the practice can no more be undertaken in its wholeness. As a result my right to practice is challenged by breaking the tradition, since the practice is possible only when the "means to practice" is available, and the strict observance of the rule by temple authority and communities collective belief, is the rule to which a devotee subjects himself or herself to, which itself is the means to practice.
You cannot ban a mantra, or a mala and say you are upholding the religious practice of Japa. You cannot say that I am allowing the blacksmith or the weaver to ply his trade by taking away all his tools.
Same way the rules, the vrathams are the mode of worship, and by making it "any way goes", the very means is being diluted and washed away. By killing the means the very end is rendered unreachable.
2. Article 25: Right to profess and propagate religion
If the temple starts allowing anyone without any rules, the believers and followers will see their traditional practice and its effect being diluted, and the dream of seeing lord ayyappa after the entire family undertakes rigourous vratham of 41 days, is being mocked at, as other people are coming in without any such rule at all, and without any rigourous penance. Essentially both followers and non believers will get "divya darisanam", mocking at the efforts taken by the followers and their families.
This is taking away the right under Article 25 to profess and propagate ones religion. The essential element of vratham involved in the mode of religious practice is being flouted. It is like claiming that sanyasis can be married, church fathers can be married, sisters in church can be married, and those religious institutions should accept that. The essential character of the religuous practice must be protected by stipulation for it to survive as an article of faith.
By nullifying and taking away the "vratham" as an essential religious practice for sabarimala, the entire religious practice is being broken and rendered non existent due to an incorrect interpretation of Article 25.
Example Cases
Example Cases
As per the below verdict given in SC for case of Central Board of the Dawoodi Bohra Committee v State of Maharashtra, the court is clearly stating that Article 25 also extends to "acts done in pursuance of religion, and contain a gaurantee for rituals and observances, ceremonies and modes of worship which are integral parts of religion. Practices which are regarded by "community" as a part of its religion are considered as "integral parts" . Also the doctrine of the religion itself is in keeping with the spirit of specific modes of worship (explained in later sections) .
By a 4-1 majority, the Supreme Court struck down the Act. Das Gupta J. wrote the opinion for himself, and two of his brother judges. Referring to a previous decision of the privy council, he commenced by noting that it was now a settled legal position that the Dai did have powers of excommunication. He then observed that, on a survey of precedent, there were two clear principles underlying the interpretation of Articles 25 and 26:
“The first is that the protection of these articles is not limited to matters of doctrine or belief they extend also to acts done in pursuance of religion and therefore contain a guarantee for rituals and observances, ceremonies and modes of worship which are integral parts of religion. The second is that what constitutes an essential part of a religious or religious practice has to be decided by the courts with reference to the doctrine of a particular religion and include practices which are regarded by the community as a part of its religion.”
4. Article 25: No issues with morality , public order and health
In the sabarimala religious practice false equivocations cannot be made with immoral practices such as forced sati etc. There is no question of morality here, as entire family is happily participating in the vratham mode of worship. Public order is not under threat, in fact its only after the verdict, devotees are being instigated and falsely implicated.
On the health aspect, in fact there are instance of people bringing up the fact that yogic sciences talk about the fact that women of reproductive age and their health maybe negatively impacted due to vibrations of a yogic center and a diety in yogic sadhana such as lord ayyappa in sabarimala.
5. Article 17 : Untouchability
Article 17 regarding untouchability does not apply here at all. In fact Sabarimala is "upholding" article 17 , there being NO CASTE based discrimination here since ancient times.
In the sabarimala religious practice false equivocations cannot be made with immoral practices such as forced sati etc. There is no question of morality here, as entire family is happily participating in the vratham mode of worship. Public order is not under threat, in fact its only after the verdict, devotees are being instigated and falsely implicated.
On the health aspect, in fact there are instance of people bringing up the fact that yogic sciences talk about the fact that women of reproductive age and their health maybe negatively impacted due to vibrations of a yogic center and a diety in yogic sadhana such as lord ayyappa in sabarimala.
5. Article 17 : Untouchability
Article 17 regarding untouchability does not apply here at all. In fact Sabarimala is "upholding" article 17 , there being NO CASTE based discrimination here since ancient times.
5. Article 21: Rights of the deity
And of course the rights of the diety also apply which is Article 21.The diety has laid down rules for strict vratham as per the history of the temple.
6. Article 26 : What denomination does sabarimala belong to?
Article 26 , sabarimala is definitely hindu religious denomination. It is under devaswom board, and the diety plus practices have hindu origins. All religions are allowed in sabarimala, as since per hinduism, all religions and faiths, are under hinduism, since it allow plurality of worshiped deity and modes of worship. Hinduism accepts worship of god in any form ,and considering everyone undertaking the vratham and having devotion as a hindu even if he also worships jesus or Allah, hence sabarimala belongs to hindu religious denomination.
Narrative
My views concur with that of Justice Indu Malhotra, in her words
“Judicial review of religious practises ought not to be undertaken, as the Court cannot impose its morality or rationality with respect to the form of worship of a deity. Doing so would negate the freedom to practise one’s religion according to one’s faith and beliefs. "
1. Social effect of breaking tradition
Breaking sabarimala tradition is a discrimination against women.Against women who believe in the tradition and want to gain from it. Against women like honorable judge indu malhotra who understand the in depth subtlety. Against enlightened populace of keralas matrimonial society who have followed tradition for thousands of years. Against those who dont have a voice in westernized colonized english media. Against anyone who doesn't follow a communist ideology.
It is a rank discrimination and in fact worse, it's a false incrimination, a false accusation and a false characterization of peace loving traditionalists who only seek the wellness of entire humanity and living beings. It is nothing short of violence and ignorance cannot be a valid reason for continued propagation of violence.
It is a rank discrimination and in fact worse, it's a false incrimination, a false accusation and a false characterization of peace loving traditionalists who only seek the wellness of entire humanity and living beings. It is nothing short of violence and ignorance cannot be a valid reason for continued propagation of violence.
2. 41 day vratham, is it discriminatory? Supported by religious doctrine and not just community
Moreover if the argument is that the 41 day vratham itself is stipulated to be discriminatory , discrimination can only be argued if the benefits are usurped by a certain section. By not following any kind of vratham and going with a random irumudi based on no rules, or self made rules, why do they believe that there would be a benefit. If they argue that god didn't create these rules , then we can argue that none of the vrathams, traditions, mantras are valid. I can even worship a Mickey mouse as god with candies ?
We arent simply visiting a deity statue. There is a living God who is manifesting as a blessing principle "via" the form. We worship the god in the form and not just the plain form. That's why a vigraha or statue needs a prana pratishta, after which the diety has entered the statue and it becomes the living diety.
If we are to believe that a god principle which is other than the form has entered the form , then why was this form picked, why not some random form ? This means the form has a significance, a reason behind it. Which means the means of worshipping the form cannot be random. If the forms are specific , the mode of worship is specific and so is the result.
If the mode of worship is not followed we believe the result is not beneficial.
So if women worship without any mode or rules and is of either no benefit or opposite effect , due to which they are advised not to come , is that discrimination ?
By having the husband visit, dont they gain the same benefit as the husband carry the irumudi.
We arent simply visiting a deity statue. There is a living God who is manifesting as a blessing principle "via" the form. We worship the god in the form and not just the plain form. That's why a vigraha or statue needs a prana pratishta, after which the diety has entered the statue and it becomes the living diety.
If we are to believe that a god principle which is other than the form has entered the form , then why was this form picked, why not some random form ? This means the form has a significance, a reason behind it. Which means the means of worshipping the form cannot be random. If the forms are specific , the mode of worship is specific and so is the result.
If the mode of worship is not followed we believe the result is not beneficial.
So if women worship without any mode or rules and is of either no benefit or opposite effect , due to which they are advised not to come , is that discrimination ?
By having the husband visit, dont they gain the same benefit as the husband carry the irumudi.
Those arguing to create their own rules , based on what can they claim that "their" rules will "work" for the benefit. If they claim god has no rules , then based on what do they claim so, and as explained if we extend that argument we need not have any form , we can worship Mickey mouse with candies.
Without any means of knowledge to justify their claims, they have no right to impose their thoughts.
To uphold gender non discrimination , discrimination has to be established by proving that the "benefits have been usurped". Whereas in this case the men and women both benefit by folowing the tradition (as have women for 1000 years).
If they claim the benefit that accrues to women is usurped by not letting them pray , they have to prove it, and they have no basis or means of knowledge to prove so. Without a means of knowledge what they believe is purely their "opinion without any basis". In a free country how can you impose your opinion on others through law?
To uphold gender non discrimination , discrimination has to be established by proving that the "benefits have been usurped". Whereas in this case the men and women both benefit by folowing the tradition (as have women for 1000 years).
If they claim the benefit that accrues to women is usurped by not letting them pray , they have to prove it, and they have no basis or means of knowledge to prove so. Without a means of knowledge what they believe is purely their "opinion without any basis". In a free country how can you impose your opinion on others through law?
Conclusion
Pandalam + other royals etc. built 100+ temples- all genders allowed, but apparently for their sadistic pleasure they built 1 temple and said "lets keep women out"? Makes no sense at all .
We must be sensible in our judgments and not allow our own prejudices to cloud our judgement.
It is the duty of the law of the land to uphold the constitutional right to practice of ones religion and religious beliefs, subject to morality, public order and health . In this case there is no threat to morality , public order is being broken by instigating devotees by their right is being taken away. Request the highest seat to protect our constitutional rights.
