SC: Cheque Dishonour Complaint Can't be Quashed Pre-Trial if Sec 138 NI Act Conditions Met  ||  SC: Personal Hearing Not Required Before Banks Declare Account ‘Fraud’  ||  Supreme Court Faults UCO Bank For Attempt to Stall Employee’s VRS Through Show Cause Notice  ||  SC: PwD Post in Unreserved Category Can be Filled by SC/ST/OBC Candidates With Disabilities  ||  Delhi HC: FSSAI Has No Authority to Regulate Animal Feed  ||  Gauhati HC: Adult Son Pursuing Studies is Not Entitled to Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC  ||  Cal HC Upholds Divorce, Rules False Cases by Wife And 17-Year Separation Constitute Mental Cruelty  ||  Supreme Court: Calling Someone ‘Bastard’ In Heated Exchange Isn’t Obscenity under IPC Section 294  ||  Supreme Court: Even a Single Tainted Public Work Award Violates Article 14  ||  Supreme Court Upholds Lease Cancellation, Denies Relief for Failure to Develop Allotted Land    

S. Mahendran v. The Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board, Thiruvananthapuram and Ors. - (High Court of Kerala) (05 Apr 1991)

Saving the Brahmachari from wonting the vamp

MANU/KE/0012/1993

Constitution

The ban on women entering the ‘Sabarimala’ faces agitation again, but favourable or un-, lifted or not, the outcome will point to the current leanings of the moral compass, given the facts are unchanging. In 1991 the Kerala High Court, rather proactively, “direct[ed] the Travancore Devaswom Board, not to permit women above the age of 10 and below the age of 50 to trek the holy hills of Sabarimala in connection with the pilgrimage…”. Its rationale? Men are men and women are seductresses, incapable of purity in thought, word and deed, seeking only to mislead the ‘Brahmachari’. During the period of ‘Vratham’ (penance) “A pilgrim starts trekking the Sabarimala only after completing the penance for a period of 41 days. Women of the age group 10 to 50 will not be in a position to observe Vratham continuously for a period of 41 days due to physiological reasons.” The Court reiterated that the Temple’s administration had complete autonomy in the matter of deciding what rites and ceremonies were essential and no court could interfere with such a decision. Moreover, the ban on women that could actually make the pilgrimage to the temple did not distinguish on the basis of caste, creed or colour. The Supreme Court has its work cut out, battling many decades of law encircling 'religious freedom'. That, or it's going to be a mighty short judgment dismissing.

Relevant : Raja Bira Kishore Deb v. State of Orissa MANU/SC/0038/1964 Ratilal Panachand Gandhi vs. The State of Bombay and Ors. MANU/SC/0138/1954 Article 25 Constitution of India Act Article 26 Constitution of India Act

Tags : SABARIMALA   BAN   WOMEN   KERALA  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved