SC: CIRP Can Continue Despite Fraudulent Insolvency Plea That Triggered It  ||  Delhi HC: Senior Citizen May Seek Eviction of Daughter-in-Law for Ill-Treatment  ||  Delhi HC: Mere Possession of Visa Does Not Confer an Unconditional Right to Enter India  ||  Delhi HC: Every Insensitive or Objectionable Matrimonial Act Does Not Amount to Cruelty  ||  J&K&L HC: Fake Driving Licence Does Not Exonerate Insurer If Driver Has a Valid Licence  ||  P&H HC: Safety Council Report and CCTV Cannot Be Rejected at Charge Stage for Lack of Proof  ||  Delhi High Court Stays Rs. 213 Crore SAIL Payout to British Firm over Unstamped Arbitral Award  ||  Allahabad HC: Bar Council Cannot Suspend Advocate’s Licence Pending Disciplinary Inquiry  ||  SC: CIRP Need Not Be Set Aside Solely for Fraudulent Filing of Section 9 Plea  ||  Supreme Court: Compromise Decree Passed Without Impleading Necessary Party is Void    

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