Indira Jaising invoked Shabari before Supreme Court of India Constitution Bench to stress inclusivity in worship. Arguments arose in ongoing challenge to gender restrictions at Sabarimala Temple concerning women’s entry rights.
During an important hearing on gender-based restrictions at places of worship, the story of Shabari from the Ramayana was invoked before a nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India. The matter forms part of a broader judicial examination of alleged discrimination against women in religious institutions, including the Sabarimala Temple.
The Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi, is currently examining key constitutional questions arising from the long-standing Sabarimala dispute.
The proceedings trace their origin to the landmark 2018 judgment in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, where a Constitution Bench, by a 4:1 majority, struck down the practice that barred women between the ages of 10 and 50 from entering the Sabarimala temple. The Court had held that such exclusion was unconstitutional and violated principles of equality and religious freedom. However, in 2019, a subsequent bench led by then Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi referred larger questions concerning women’s entry into religious spaces to a nine-judge bench for authoritative determination.
During the recent hearing, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for petitioners including Bindu Ammini and Kanakadurga two women who had entered the temple following the 2018 verdict referred to the story of Shabari to emphasise inclusivity in faith.
She narrated:
“Who was Shabari? All of you have read the Ramayana. She was a woman, and what did she do? She offered a berry to Lord Ram. The myth says that I have been waiting all my life to meet Lord Ram. It was my desire, my inner desire. Then I heard that he is coming to Sabrimalai. And what was Shabri Malai? What Malai means, a hill, a person who lives on hills; tribals live on hills; this is their original home.”
She further elaborated on the symbolic devotion of Shabari, stating:
“She said finally, my dream is coming true, and I will get to meet Lord Rama. She thought what will I offer him as I have no money. She said I will offer him berries. Then she thought what if the berries I offer him is bitter. Then she said, let me taste it, and I will discard the one which is bitter.”
Continuing the narrative, she added,
“I will only give him berries which is sweet. When Lord Rama came she offered him berries. His brother Lakshman told Rama what are you doing. How can you eat these as she has already eaten them. Rama replied that I am honouring her belief. I am respecting her and this an act of love. And that Sabarimala, you are keeping me, I am also a Shabari. You are keeping me out,”
Responding to the submission, Justice Aravind Kumar made a brief observation, remarking: “Shabari was above 50 (years of age).”
The case raises fundamental constitutional questions concerning the interpretation of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, which deal with the right to freedom of religion and the rights of religious denominations. The Bench has framed several key issues, including the scope of religious freedom, the balance between individual rights and denominational rights, and whether practices rooted in religion can be tested against constitutional principles such as equality and dignity.
Among the questions under consideration are:
- What is the scope and ambit of right to freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution of India?”
- What is the inter-play between the rights of persons under Article 25 of the Constitution of India and rights of religious denomination under Article 26?
- Whether denominational rights are subject to other fundamental rights?
- What is the scope and extent of the word ‘morality’ under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution?
- Whether it is meant to include Constitutional morality?
Additionally, the Bench will determine the extent of judicial review over religious practices, interpret the meaning of “sections of Hindus” under Article 25(2)(b), and decide “Whether individuals who are not part of a particular religious denomination can challenge its practices through public interest litigation?”
The outcome of this case is expected to have far-reaching implications, not only for the Sabarimala issue but also for similar disputes involving access to religious institutions across India, potentially shaping the constitutional balance between faith, tradition, and fundamental rights.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE