In a dramatic conclusion to Wednesday’s proceedings, the legendary devotion of Shabari from the Ramayana was invoked before a nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court. The court is currently hearing a batch of petitions addressing the complex intersection of religious freedom and gender-based discrimination, stemming from the long-standing controversy over women’s entry into the Sabarimala temple in Kerala.
The arguments were presented before a heavyweight bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, alongside Justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi.
As the bench prepared to rise for the day, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, representing Bindu Ammini and Kanakadurga—the two women who famously entered the temple following the 2018 verdict—drew a parallel between her clients and the ascetic Shabari.
Jaising recounted the story of Shabari, a tribal woman whose selfless devotion to Lord Ram is a cornerstone of the Ramayana. She described how Shabari waited her entire life on the hills (Malai) to meet Ram, offering him tasted berries to ensure only the sweet ones reached him.
“Who was Shabari? She was a woman, and what did she do? She offered a berry to Lord Ram,” Jaising submitted. Highlighting the acceptance shown by the deity despite the “defilement” of the berries being pre-tasted, she noted Ram’s response to his brother Lakshman: “I am honouring her belief. I am respecting her and this is an act of love.”
Jaising then pointedly linked the myth to the current legal struggle: “And that Sabarimala, you are keeping me [out]. I am also a Shabari.”
In a brief moment of levity following the submission, Justice Aravind Kumar remarked that according to the tradition, “Shabari was above 50 [years of age],” referring to the age group previously barred from the temple.
Beyond the narrative arguments, the nine-judge bench is tasked with answering seven pivotal questions that will define the future of religious practice in India. These questions include:
- The Ambit of Article 25: What is the scope and extent of the right to freedom of religion?
- Interplay of Rights: How do individual rights under Article 25 interact with the rights of religious denominations under Article 26?
- The Definition of Morality: Does the term “morality” in the Constitution specifically imply “Constitutional morality”?
- Judicial Review: To what extent can courts review bona fide religious practices?
- PIL Standing: Can a person who does not belong to a specific religious group challenge that group’s practices through a Public Interest Litigation (PIL)?
The legal saga began in September 2018, when a five-judge bench delivered a 4:1 majority verdict lifting the ban on women and girls between the ages of 10 and 50 entering the Sabarimala Ayyappa temple. The court had then deemed the centuries-old practice illegal and unconstitutional.
However, on November 14, 2019, following review petitions, a bench headed by then-CJI Ranjan Gogoi referred the broader issues of discrimination at various places of worship—not just Sabarimala—to this larger nine-judge bench.
The current proceedings will determine whether religious “tradition” can supersede the fundamental right to equality, or if “Constitutional morality” must be the final arbiter in the temple’s sanctum.
