Vedas, Upanishads Don’t Discriminate, Why Should Sabarimala: SC

SC has appointed senior advocate Raju Ramachandran as amicus curiae in the case.

Supreme Court has questioned the ban on women’s entry into Sabarimala temple. (Photo: The Quint)

In the latest development regarding the entry of women in Sabarimala, the Supreme Court, on Friday, asked the Sabarimala Temple Board to give its reply within six weeks.

The court asked why the Board discriminates against women when Vedas, Upanishads don’t.

We will take a decision pertaining to the entry ban of women on the basis of constitutional parameters.

The Supreme Court

The apex court has also appointed senior advocate Raju Ramachandran as amicus curiae for the case.

On January 11, the apex court had questioned the ban on the entry of menstruating women in Sabarimala Ayyappa temple. The court was hearing a PIL filed by the Young Lawyers’ Association, seeking entry for all women in the hill shrine.

Following that, the matter has seen many twists and turns. The ruling UDF government on February 5 said it wants to protect the centuries-old religious tradition after CM Oommen Chandy initially said the government would not interfere in any religious affairs.

Opposition CPI (M) state secretary Kodiyeri Balakrishnan said that the SC should take a final decision on the issue. Some Left leaders had welcomed the SC observations when the issue first came to light.

Read more on the issue from The Quint’s coverage here.