NEW DELHI: During the hearing of review petitions against September 28 apex court order, Adv Parasaran who appeared for NSS said that Sabarimala deity would lose its celibacy if women of menstruating age were allowed to enter the temple.

The review petitions was heard by a Constitution bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices RF Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra.

Tantri Kandarau Rajeevaru,NSS, Pandalam Palace Management Committee, Akhila Bharatheeya Ayyappa Seva Sangam, Yoga Kshema Sabha, All Kerala Brahmana Federation, Prayar Gopalakrishnan, BJP leader B Radhakrishna Menon, P C George and Rahul Easwar had moved the court with review petitions. There are 65 petitions including 56 review petitions.

ARGUMENTS:

Rakesh Dwivedi (Devaswom Board)

Adv Rakesh Dwivedi, who appeared for Devaswom Board, said that mankind will not exist without menstruation. There is equal rights for everyone. This is very important. All have the right to go to temple. All individuals have right to religion.

To this argument, Indu Malhothra asked whether the Devaswom board had changed its earlier stand and Dwivedi replied it changed the stand after the Supreme Court order came out.

Venkittaramani
“If you are a believer, you should accept the belief. How can you claim to be a believer when you question that belief? You can believe or cannot believe.

Shekhar Naphade (representing Brahmana Sabha)

“What has been cancelled now is centuries-old belief. This is not part of laws applicable to general public. It is an internal matter of a particular community and it is for them to decide on the tradition.

The court usually interferes only when primitive traditions like Sati were banned according to criminal law. The court doesn’t have the right to tell someone to believe in some in something or tell believers not to retain their beliefs. Many believe in God but scientist Stephen Hawking didn’t believe in God.”

In between this, Justice Indu Malhotra asked for a copy of Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act.
Naphde winded up his arguments agreeing to give her the copy.

Kailasnath Pillai (Ayappa Seva Samithi)
“The Sabarimala deity’s naishtik brahmacharyam (celibacy) is part of the belief.”

Sai Deepak (Pandalam Palace)
“The women’s entry was banned as per Kerala Act Rule 3(B) but as per two other notification.”

Gopal Shankaranarayan
“Traditions related to menstruation is applicable to all temples in Kerala.
In this context, arguments of not only Travancore Devaswom board but also of other Devaswom board should be heard.
In worshipping centres across India, gender discrimination exists. The September 28 verdict had affected that but the court has not taken note of all that.”

Mohan Parasharan (BJP leader Radhakrishna Menon)

“Denying special denomination status to Ayyappa devotees because of the reason that they are part of different religions is not right.
Mixing up Sabarimala belief and Sufism is wrong.

Vennkittaraman

“The belief of one person can be superstition of another person. We can’t apply logic to this. Belief is belief. Beliefs based on menstruation exist not only in India but in countries like Egypt.

Manu Abhishek Singvi (Prayar Gopalakrishnan)

“Sabarimala is the only temple that exists based on the concept of celibacy. Women of menstrual ages are barred as per the character of Sabarimala deity. Only Justice Indu Malhotra and D Y Chandrachood had taken this into consideration in their order.

The speciality of Sabarimala deity that he is a celibate was not considered in the Sabarimala case. That is the basis of my argument for the review of the order. The prohibition of untouchability referred in Article 17 is not at all relevant in this case.”

Adv V V Giri ( Sabarimala Thantri Kandararu Rajeevaru)

“Women’s entry was being opposed considering the speciality of installation in Sabrimala temple. The idol will lose its celibacy if women enter temple. The right given to a citizen for worshipping should also be made applicable to the installation in the temple. Sabarimala thantri also has special rights there. There is no connection between women’s entry and untouchability. Moreover, women who reached Sabarimala seeking temple entry were not true believers.”