Sabarimala Verdict goes astray from the Realm of Hindu Beliefs and Customs?

A careful look at the 411 page Judgment delivered on 28 September 2018 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 373 OF 2006 popularly known as the Sabarimala case (https://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2006/18956/18956_2006_Judgement_28-Sep-2018.pdf) raises many questions. To begin with, the questions that came up right at para 2 (page-2), where Deepak Mishra J. says, “The attribute of devotion to divinity cannot be subjected to the rigidity and stereotypes of gender” are:

• Is this observation applicable only to some of the Hindu shrines or to all the shrines of all deities and religions?
• Is the Supreme Court trying to protect the rights of the Hindu devotee women or the activists?
• If deities are juristic persons in the eyes of law, do they have any rights? If river Ganga has the rights of a living being as per a judicial pronouncement, would Lord Ayyappa have any rights or the deity has to present Himself before any and every person visiting Him? Can or should the visitors come to visit the Padmanabha temple bare chest irrespective of their gender?
• Can such attributes of devotion to divinity like the method of worship, chants, prayers, rituals be subjected to definitions and propriety of the deity? Would Digamber Jain saints be subjected to humiliation in the name of such gender equality? How about Naga Sadhus at the Kumbh?
• Can a Hindu devotee go to a church or a mosque and chant “Om” rather than the invocation to “Father, son and the Holy Spirit” or the “Kalama.” Can Hindu women hold a “Mata ki Chowki” type of event during the Urs at Nizammuddin or Ajmer Shareef?
• Conversely can devotion to divinity be subjected to the rigidity and stereotypes of the religion of birth of the devotee or ones current faith (including lack of it) in any religion?

Deepak Mishra J. begins para-3 (page-3) by saying, “Any relationship with the Creator is a transcendental one crossing all socially created artificial barriers and not a negotiated relationship bound by terms and conditions. Such a relationship and expression of devotion cannot be circumscribed by dogmatic notions of biological or physiological factors arising out of rigid socio-cultural attitudes which do not meet the constitutionally prescribed tests. Patriarchy in religion cannot be permitted to trump over the element of pure devotion borne out of faith and the freedom to practise and profess one’s religion.”

Only the Abrahamic religions talk of one Male God as the creator; Hindus believe in Trinities of Gods and Goddesses at the apex followed by thousands of other Gods and Goddesses representing nearly every aspect of nature and celestial formations. Hindus worship deities in temples. Hindus do have a system of negotiated relationships with Gods – partnerships in business, promised actions of prayer/pilgrimage/presents to the deity upon the fulfillment of the wishes and desires of the devotee by the deity. Hindus do not consider all of such Gods and Goddesses to be creators. Hindus believe in necessity of a bath before going to a temple or performing prayers. They do not take footwear inside the temples.

Questions raised earlier become more emphatic in light of this articulation by the Hon’ble CJI. To add to those, further questions which come up are:

• Is the Supreme Court sweeping away all Hindu beliefs and propagating the notion of one unitary God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam?
• Does the Creator which the Hon’ble CJI referring to, has a gender? Is such a notion less patriarchal?
• Why Jesus and Mohammed, sons of the God males? Did they have any female siblings worthy of worship?
• Irrespective of the deity worshiped, is the Supreme Court stating that all temples be attributed to the singular male creator and not the myriad of Gods and Goddesses in whom Hindus believe?
• Is segregation of devotees in separate queues according to their gender not discriminatory and against constitutional morality?
• Since Hindu religion promises and advocates “Sarva Dharma Sambhav” can Hindus take their prayers and rituals in to the places of worship of non-Hindu religions?

To a naïve person, most of the judgment appears to be a speech of a social reformer rather than a judicial pronouncement. Is the Supreme Court of India charged with the responsibility of being the savior of the Constitution or a social reformer? Do social reforms override religious beliefs? Are such social and religious reforms mandated only for the Hindu society and religion while all other religions are protected from such judicial trespass? Is it true that usually only the Hindu Shrines are taken over for administration by the state and thereafter, the affairs of such temples and shrines is subject to political and administrative overreach of the Government and the Courts?

Overreach from Supreme Court, an institution which is possibly the most opaque in its own conduct and affairs, is arrogance and obstinacy rather than a positive reform. The guardian of all freedoms does not allow anyone the freedom to question or comment upon its own conduct brandishing the sword of “Contempt of Court.” Have the fallible Judges transgressed the Realm of Hindu Beliefs and Customs in Sabarimala Verdict?

__________________________________

Feel free to share the post with your friends and networks!!

You are invited to follow the author’s blog in HINDI -

• https://www.facebook.com/vichaaronkeeduniyamein/

__________________________________