I am also a Shabari, why keep me out of Sabarimala: Senior advocate Indira Jaising tells SC

The Shabari story in the Ramayana found mention before a nine-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court on Wednesday while hearing petitions related to discrimination against women at religious places, including the Sabarimala temple in Kerala. The top court bench comprised Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and 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 was about to rise for the day, senior advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for two women named Bindu Ammini and Kanakadurga who had entered the Sabarimala temple pursuant to the 2018 judgment, referred to character of Shabari, an old ascetic woman from a tribal community with selfless devotion towards Ram. ''Who was Shabari? All of you have read the Ramayana. She was a woman, and what did she do? She offered a berry to Lord Ram. The myth says that I have been waiting all my life to meet Lord Ram. It was my desire, my inner desire. Then I heard that he is coming to Sabrimalai. And what was Shabri Malai? What Malai means, a hill, a person who lives on hills; tribals live on hills; this is their original home.'' Jaising went on to add: ''She said finally my dream is coming true and I will get to meet Lord Rama. She thought what will I offer him as I have no money. She said I will offer him berries. Then she thought what if the berries I offer him is biter. Then she said, let me taste it and I will discard the one which is bitter.'' ''I will only give him berries which is sweet. When Lord Rama came she offered him berries. His brother Lakshman told Rama what are you doing. How can you eat these as she has already eaten them. Rama replied that I am honouring her belief. I am respecting her and this an act of love. And that Sabarimala, you are keeping me, I am also a Shabari. You are keeping me out,'' Jaising submitted. Responding to her submission, Justice Kumar said in a lighter vein, ''Shabari was above 50 (years of age). Women and girls between 10 and 50 years of age were legally banned from entering Sabarimala from 1991 to 2018. A five-judge constitution bench, by a 4:1 majority verdict in September 2018, lifted a ban that prevented women between the ages of 10 and 50 years from entering the Sabarimala Ayyappa temple and held that the centuries-old Hindu religious practice was illegal and unconstitutional. Later, on November 14, 2019, another five-judge bench headed by the then CJI Ranjan Gogoi, by a majority of 3:2, referred the issue of discrimination against women at various places of worship to a larger bench. Earlier, the top court read out seven questions it had framed on the scope of religious freedom. Asserting that it was open to addition and deletion of issues framed, the bench had said it would consider ''what is the scope and ambit of right to freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution of India?'' About the second issue, it said, ''What is the inter-play between the rights of persons under Article 25 of the Constitution of India and rights of religious denomination under Article 26?'' The third question is whether the rights of a religious denomination under Article 26 are subject to other fundamental rights apart from public order, morality and health. ''What is the scope and extent of the word 'morality' under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, and whether it is meant to include Constitutional morality?'' read the fourth question. The bench had said it would also examine the ''scope and extent of judicial review,'' concerning a religious practice as referred under Article 25. ''What is the meaning of the expression ''sections of Hindus'' occurring in Article 25 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India?'' read the sixth issue. The top court had said it would examine, as the seventh question, whether a person not belonging to a religious denomination or religious group can question a practice of that ''religious denomination or religious group'' by filing a public interest litigation.

(This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)