Sabarimala Unites Left and Modi Govt! | 9-Judge Bench Starts Hearing Case in Art 25 and 26

The video begins by describing an unusual event at the Supreme Court concerning the Sabarimala temple. It explains the long-standing tradition at Sabarimala, where women of reproductive age (10-50 years old) are not permitted to enter, as the deity, Lord Ayyappa, is a 'Naishtika Brahmachari' (celibate). This tradition is unique to this specific Ayyappa temple, unlike other Ayyappa temples.

Activists, not traditionally associated with Hinduism, challenged this tradition, leading to a Supreme Court case. A five-judge bench initially ruled 4:1 against the tradition, with Justice Indu Malhotra being the sole dissenting judge. She argued that the restrictions were legitimate, fell under the right to religion (Article 26), and should not be interfered with. Examples of other gender-specific temple entry rules, like the Brahma Temple in Pushkar for men and a Trivandrum temple exclusively for women, were cited.

Following a review petition, the previous ruling was stayed, and the case was referred to a nine-judge Constitutional Bench. This referral aims to address broader constitutional questions, particularly the conflict between Article 25 (individual religious freedom) and Article 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs by denominations) of the Indian Constitution. A crucial point of discussion is the concept of 'essential religious practices' and who defines them, along with the question of who can file Public Interest Litigations (PILs) for religious practices.

A surprising development is the alignment of the Central Government and the Kerala Left Government, both now supporting the unique tradition of Sabarimala. The Solicitor General argued that Sabarimala is a 'sui generis' (unique) case. This new stance contrasts with Kerala's original position against the tradition. The video also notes the RSS's initial opposition to the ban on women's entry, which later changed after public pressure and a better understanding of the tradition's nuances, recognizing it as a specific practice rather than discrimination.