On September 28 last year, The Supreme Court pronounced its historic verdict allowing entry for women of all ages into the Sabarimala temple in Kerala.
Let's look at the 27-year-old struggle:
• The entry of women to Sabarimala was restricted based on the Impugned Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places Of Public Worship (Authorisation Of Entry) Act, 1965 (Act). This practice was in force traditionally for around 800 years.
1991: Kerala High Court upholds an age-old restriction on women of a certain age-group entering the Sabarimala temple. A two-judge bench decreed (on April 5) that the prohibition by the Travancore Devaswom Board that administers the hill shrine does not violate either the Constitution or a pertinent 1965 Kerala law. Reason: the ban was for women (even before 1950, as per the testimony of the vintage temple's chief priest) between the ages of 10 and 50, not as a class.
2006: A famed astrologer conducts a temple-centric assignment called 'Devaprasnam', and declares having found signs of a woman's entry into the temple sometime ago.
2006: Soon, Kannada actress-politician Jayamala claimed publicly that she had entered the precincts of Sabarimala in 1987 as a 28-year-old. She also claimed she even touched the deity inside the sanctum sanctorum as part of a film shoot and this was done in connivance with the priest.
2006: The allegation led the Kerala government to probe the matter through its crime branch, but the case was later dropped.
2006: The India Young Lawyers Association files a PIL with the Supreme Court, challenging the rules issued by the State of Kerala and notifications issued by Travancore Devaswom Board that prevented entry of women between the ages of 10-50 years into the temple on the grounds that such rules and notifications are violative of the Right to practise religion (Article 25) and the Right to Equality (Articles 14 and 15). The petition also urges the court to declare Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965, which prohibits menstruating women from entering temples, as unconstitutional.
2007: The Left Democratic Front (LDF) government, led by V S Achuthanandan, supports the PIL filed by women lawyers questioning the ban on the entry of women in Sabarimala.
2008: The Supreme Court observed that any restriction that amounts to the violation of Constitutional rights will be struck down.
2011-16: The United Democratic Front (UDF) government, led by Oommen Chandy, takes a U-turn. Rejecting the previous government stand, the UDF government said the tradition must be followed and the bar on entry for women between the ages of 10-50 years should be continued. It also stresses that final decision on such a matter rests with the priests. The affidavit says the restriction was in line with the unique idol concept of the temple and was therefore an integral part of the right to practice religion. The state also withdraws an earlier affidavit filed by the LDF government in November 2007, which had supported entry of women into the temple.
January 11, 2016: A three-judge bench of justices Dipak Mishra, Pinaki Chandra Ghose and N V Rama begins hearing in the case. Justice Mishra observes that it was possible that women had right of entry to Sabarimala temple at one point of time and that the ban might have gained currency in the intervening years and it is perhaps time to review it.
January 15: Naushad Ahmed Khan, president of the Indian Young Lawyers Association, approaches the court seeking to withdraw the petition citing threats against him. The three-judge bench turns him down.
2016: The India Young Lawyers Association contended that Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules 1965 that stated: "Women who are not by custom and usage allowed to enter a place of public worship shall not be entitled to enter or offer worship in any place of public worship", violated constitutional guarantees of equality, non-discrimination and religious freedom.
October 7, 2016: A group of women devotees, who called themselves 'Right to Bleed' campaigners, moves the Supreme Court seeking the preservation of temple customs and claims they were ready to wait till they reach 50 to enter the temple.
Nov 2016: Once again, when the Pinarayi Vijayan-led LDF government came back to power, Kerala changed its stand and returned to the VS government's policy. It now favoured the entry of women of all age groups filing an affidavit to the effect.
Oct 13, 2017: The three-judge bench formed five "significant" questions to decide the merits of the case and referred the matter to five-judge Constitution Bench. One, whether the exclusionary practice which is based upon a biological factor exclusive to the female gender amounts to discrimination. Two, whether the practice of excluding such women constitutes an "essential religious practice". Three, whether Ayyappa Temple has a denominational character. Four, whether Rule 3 of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules permits 'religious denomination' to ban entry of women between the age of 10 to 50 years? Five, whether rule 3(b) of of 1965 Rules contradict the 1965 Act.
July 17, 2018: The Constitution bench begins hearing on whether prohibiting the entry of women in Sabarimala temple on grounds of biological factors was discriminatory and violative of the fundamental rights under the Constitution.
July 18, 2018: Advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for the Happy to Bleed petitioners, introduces the untouchability argument. "Prohibition of women entry is a form of untouchability. The sole basis of restriction is menstruation of women. To keep away menstruating women is a form of untouchability. Menstruating women are seen as polluted," she argues.
• The Constitution bench examines whether the exclusion of women based on biological factors amounts to "discrimination" and violates the very core of Articles 14 (right to equality), 15 (prohibition of discrimination) and 17 (untouchability) and not protected by 'morality' as used in Articles 25 (freedom to practice and propagation of religion) and 26 (Freedom to manage religious affairs) of the Constitution.
July 24, 2018: Travancore Devaswom Board counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi argues that women are physically incapable of observing the 41-day penance. In response, Justice D Y Chandrachud observes that abstinence is a state of mind and to restrain women from pursuing their right to worship on physiological grounds would be unconstitutional. When the TDB counsel says the restriction was in place from time immemorial, Justice Nariman brings his notice to an affidavit filed by the board in the High Court in 1991 that said the restriction was only for the 'mandalam', 'makaravilakku' and Vishu period and the temple was open to all when it opens for five days every month. "What happens to the celibate nature of Lord Ayyappa in those 5 days? Is it that the idol vanishes on those days?", he asks.
• Supreme Court Chief Justice Dipak Misra, hearing the PIL, questions the temple's authority to deny entry to a particular section of women.
September 28, 2018: Supreme Court lifts the ban on entry of women of child-bearing age into Sabarimala by a 4-1 majority. It rules that Ayyappa devotees did not constitute a separate denomination. Importantly, it strikes down rule 3(b) of Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules 1965, which prohibits the entry of menstruating women into any temples in the state.
• In her dissent, Justice Indu Malhotra argues that issues of deep religious sentiments should not be ordinarily be interfered by the court. She also says the notion of rationality should not be inserted into matters of religion.
October 8, 2018: Nair Service Society (NSS) files a review petition against the September 28 verdict arguing that the court should not have entertained the litigation questioning the practices of Sabarimala temple, when women worshippers themselves were not opposed to such practices. "In the present case, subsequent events that transpired after the judgment of which judicial notice may be taken, clearly demonstrate that overwhelmingly large section of women worshippers are supporting the custom of prohibiting entry of women between the ages of 10 and 50," says the NSS petition.
October 16-22, 2018: Violent incidents at base camps of Sabarimala, Nilakkal and Pamba, as temple opens for the first time after Supreme Court verdict. Police clash with protesters after they blocked vehicles and heckled woman journalists and stopped women devotees from heading towards Sabarimala.
November 5, 2018: Sabarimala goes under security cover ahead of the temple opening for Chithira Thirunal Aatta Vishesham.
November 5, 2018: Anju, a native of Cherthala reaches Pamba along with husband and two children in a bid to visit the shrine. She turns away after talks with the police.
November 13, 2018: The Supreme Court refused to stay its September 28 verdict but agreed to hear in open court on January 22 a batch of review petitions in the matter.
January 2, 2019: Bindu and Kanakadurga, aged 44 and 42, were the first to step into the temple after the top court's historic judgment lifted the ban on entry of girls and women between 10 and 50 years of age
January 3, 2019: Widespread violence across Kerala during the hartal called by Sabarimala Karma Samiti
January 22, 2019: The top court says it may not start hearing the pleas, seeking review of Sabarimala verdict till January 30 as one of the judges of the bench, Justice Indu Malhotra, was on medical leave.
February 6, 2019: SC reserves judgment in Sabarimala review petitions. Advocates have been given seven days' time to file the rest of the arguments in writing.
November 14, 2019: The Supreme Court has passed the review petitions over entry of women of child-bearing age into the Sabarimala temple to the seven-member Constitution bench. This means the uncertainty over the Supreme Court order allowing women of all age groups to enter the hill shrine in Kerala's Pathanamthitta district will remain unsettled for more time.
