In an ironic turnout of events, about the Sabarimala issue, where as of last week the judgement on review petitions were reserved, the Devaswom Board making an unexpected U-turn to allow women of all age and the denial the next day pleading that the TDB’s representative lawyer’s stance not let known to the Board’s President, that their decision to allow all women, despite the menstruation age being the biggest debatable issue thus far.This stand by the Devaswom Board irked and gotten the wrath, of many. Many Kerala Hindus were very confident about the Devaswom Board’s stand in objecting to the women’s’ entry between 10 and 50 despite, not having filed a review petition to this effect. What we fail to see, is the intervening happening which was never brought to the notice or highlighted to the public and treated as a very normative incident.
In their judgement on the Sabarimala Issue, Five Judges sitting bench head by CJI, Deepak Mishra, Justices R F Nariman, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra, putting an end to a centuries-old tradition, they ruled that women, irrespective of age, can enter Sabarimala temple.
Let’s see the documentary evidence submitted by the respondents, which was also cited by Justice Indu Malhotra in the final verdict, putting down her dissent and objection and also felt that such a petition should not be entertained, as the case judgement was given 4:1, from, “MEMOIR OF THE SURVEY OF THE TRAVANCORE AND COCHIN STATES” in the year 1827, recorded by the Britishers, in which it was recorded in two volumes, I and II, in the second volume Page 136 and 137 had recorded why women were not allowed into Sabarimala, as follows: This is in relevance to page 137.
“the temple, but those who have attained the age of puberty and to a certain time of life “The place is very unwholesome and many of the individuals though often changed, falls victims to the climate, old women and young girls, may approach are forbid to approach, as all sexual intercourse in that vicinity is averse to the deity”. What more evidence one needs to prove that women between 10 and 50 were forbidden to see the deity, who is a nyshtika brahmachari, celibate, the pujas are done in accordance with the tantric methodology. This was also not to bring down the penance state power or Shakti of Swami Ayyappan.
This judgement was given on a petition filed by one Naushad Ahmed Khan, President, Indian Young Lawyers Association, is one of the two lawyers who had filed and argued in court that the tradition is discriminatory in nature and stigmatised women and that women should be allowed to pray at the place of their choice. They filed for all women entry irrespective of age into Sabarimala Temple. In fact, in the earlier hearing in 2016, when this young lawyer filed his earlier PIL to this effect, Justice Deepak Mishra himself had said, “The temple cannot prohibit women, except on the basis of religion. Unless you have a constitutional right, you cannot prohibit entry. They also had decided to appoint an AMICUS CURIAE”, means refers to someone who is not a party to a case or solicited by any of the parties to assist a court and to solve the case constitutionally”.
Let’s delve into a case, which was conveniently forgotten and set aside quietly by the Kerala High Court. A petition was filed in Kerala high Court by Swamy Dethathreya Sai Swaroop Nath, State President of Akhila Bharatha Hindu Mahasabha, a Hindu right wing organization, as a party-in-person. This petition filed, asked permission to the High Court to allow Muslim Women into Mosques and offer prayers. The Division bench comprised of Chief Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice A K Jayasankaran Nambiar, while admitting the petition to this effect, observed the following:
“They questioned the locus standi which means, a right to appear in a court or before anybody on a given question, a right to be heard of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted that he can approach the court for any religion and argued that Muslim Women are facing discrimination in not being allowed to enter mosques for which the Court pointed out that Muslim Women are not being allowed to enter the Mosque at Mecca.
In furtherance, the court asked whether any Muslim Women has filed a petition raising the demand. The petitioner reiterated that many Muslim Women had told him about not being allowed into Mosques. The Court then said that it was not proper to approach it with a petition that it is based on hearsay and it is up to the Muslim Women themselves to approach the Court if they think and opine, that they are facing discrimination.
In continuation, the Court asked the petitioner as to what was his intention behind in filing this petition, towards which he told the Court, his stance is that women of all religions should be allowed to enter their places of worship in view of the Supreme Court judgement on entry of women into Sabarimala. The Court observed that, there was no link between the judgement on sabarimala and the petitioner’s demand and it shall be entertained and considered by them if Muslim Women raise such a demand. The Right Hindu outfit didn’t go any further for higher appeal at Supreme Court probably in fear of the unjust verdict given at the lower court, which wouldn’t withstand their cause at New Delhi.
They also concluded and dismissed the petition without any further arguments, saying that the petitioner has not produced enough evidence to show that Muslim Women are facing discrimination owing to denial of entry into mosques, they should also approach the Court if they are aggrieved. Stating that Prophet Muhammed had fought against the adamancy or obstinacy of the conservatives of those days, the petitioner had contended that a true follower of Muhammed will always be willing to accept and adjust to the changed circumstances of life.
Who is this Naushad Ahmed Khan and what vested interest has he in Sabarimala?Let’s see his, education background, a physics and law graduate from Janta inter College, Lisarh, 1995, then did his law from Aligarh Muslim University 1995-1998, then did LLM from Indian Law Institute, New Delhi. Given his educational background, it is no wonder, that was he up to creating chaos, confusion, into very many Hindus’ lives. He has had death threats, calls ever since he filed a PIL, PETITON towards this effect, why didn’t he think of bringing about a change in the Muslim community to bring their women into their place of worship, MOSQUE and fight for their rights. This is nothing but a big connivance between the Triple Talaq objecting irate Muslim men, very many outfit organizations, the orthodox churches supporting the cause of the Leftists led Kerala Government, to allow all age women into Sabarimala, just to exercise their legal, political power to their advantage. The irony is that when a Hindu appears for the cause of Muslim women, it is summarily dismissed at the lower court, but when a Muslim appears for the cause of Hindu women of all ages entering the sabarimala, at Supreme Court, when we even didn’t ask for it, it is being entertained and given the irksome LANDMARK JUDGEMENT. Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan, did Hindu women ask you to fight for their cause? Even the two women entry into Sabarimala, we all know who was behind all this which happened on January 2nd this year.
When a Hindu’s petition is not entertained asking for the Muslim women be allowed into mosques at the Kerala High Court level, did we Hindu women file for a petition, seekingconstitutional rights to get into sabarimala, especially menstruating women? This goes to show how unjust this matter has been addressed to despite the fact that justice Indu Malhotra was dissenting and objecting to the verdict given in September 2018. How did the Supreme Court entertain such a petition by NAUSHAD AHMED KHAN and also gave a verdict to this effect, creating unnecessary chaos, unrest in the state of Kerala, hurting the sentiments, faith, belief of Hindus in India and all over the world?
Retired judge, Sri. Deepak Misra ji, I hope you would have seen, observed the unexpected aftermath of your supposedly landmark judgment of September 2018, which is in total contradiction to your hearing statement made in 2016, on the verge of being repetitive, “The temple cannot prohibit women, except on the basis of religion. Unless you have a constitutional right, you cannot prohibit entry. They also had decided to appoint an AMICUS CURIAE”, means refers to someone who is not a party to a case or solicited by any of the parties to assist a court and to solve the case constitutionally”.
This has undoubtedly caused deaths, injured many, unrest, in the State of Kerala, giving the UNJUST CONSITUTIONAL RIGHTS, to appease whom? That too getting the supposed concurrence from the other three-men Justices panel along with you with an exception of Indu Malhotra ji. I hope and pray justice would prevail without being UNJUST, where the judgement reserved for all the review petitions would be heard, in all fairness and may the judgement of yours be reversed unconditionally, irrevocably to the old practice of women not made to enter between 10 and 50!!!!
JUSTICE GIVEN UNJUSTLY TO APPEASE WHOM? IN THE FIRST CASE,
JUSTICE (PETITION) DISMISSED UNJUSTLY ON PETTY GROUNDS, IN THE SECOND CASE,
BOTH BEING DETRIMENTAL TO THE SOCIETY’S HARMONY.
VIJAYASHREE RAMESH, CHENNAI BASED ADVOCATE.