UDF, BJP campaign against Left over Sabarimala lost its relevance, says CPI

The statement by the Communist Party of India (CPI) that the United Democratic Front (UDF) and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)'s campaign against the Left over the Sabarimala issue has lost its relevance provides a window into the complex interplay of religion, politics, and law in India, particularly in Kerala. While the immediate news highlights a political claim, it underscores the enduring significance of the Sabarimala temple controversy, which has been a flashpoint for several years, shaping electoral narratives and social discourse.

**Background Context: The Sabarimala Verdict and its Aftermath**

The heart of the Sabarimala issue lies in the traditional practice prohibiting women of menstruating age (typically between 10 and 50 years) from entering the Sabarimala Ayyappan Temple in Kerala. This centuries-old custom was challenged in the Supreme Court of India. On September 28, 2018, a five-judge Constitution Bench, in a 4:1 majority judgment (Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. vs. The State of Kerala & Ors.), struck down this ban. The Court held that the practice violated the fundamental rights of women under Articles 14 (equality before law), 15 (prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth), and 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution. It also stated that Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965, which permitted the ban, was ultra vires the parent Act.

This landmark judgment, aimed at upholding gender equality and individual dignity, triggered widespread protests across Kerala and other parts of India. Devotees, led by various Hindu organizations, argued that the ban was an essential religious practice protected under Article 25 (freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion) and Article 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs) of the Constitution. They viewed the verdict as an infringement on their faith and the unique nature of the deity, Lord Ayyappa, who is considered a 'Naishtika Brahmachari' (eternal celibate).

**What Happened: Political Fallout and Ongoing Debates**

The Left Democratic Front (LDF) government in Kerala, led by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI(M)) and including the CPI, committed to implementing the Supreme Court's judgment. This stance led to significant political backlash, with the UDF (comprising the Indian National Congress and other parties) and the BJP vehemently opposing the government's approach. They sided with the protesting devotees, accusing the LDF government of hurting religious sentiments and mismanaging the situation. The BJP, in particular, saw an opportunity to consolidate Hindu votes in a state where it traditionally had limited influence. The protests often turned violent, marked by hartals, clashes, and attempts to prevent women from entering the temple. The CPI's recent statement suggests that, from their perspective, the electoral utility of this campaign for the opposition has diminished, possibly due to shifting public focus or the passage of time since the peak of the protests.

**Key Stakeholders Involved:**

1. **Supreme Court of India:** The apex judicial body that delivered the landmark judgment, interpreting constitutional provisions related to equality and religious freedom.

2. **Kerala State Government (LDF):** The ruling coalition, particularly the CPI(M) and CPI, which was tasked with implementing the Supreme Court's order and faced immense political pressure and public outcry.

3. **Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB):** The autonomous body managing the Sabarimala temple and many other temples in Kerala. Initially opposed to women's entry, it eventually had to comply with the court's order.

4. **Ayyappa Devotees and Hindu Organizations:** A significant number of devotees, supported by various Hindu groups (e.g., Ayyappa Dharma Sena, Sabarimala Karma Samithi, RSS, VHP), protested the verdict, citing religious tradition and faith.

5. **Women's Rights Activists and Organizations:** Advocated for the implementation of the judgment, emphasizing gender equality and non-discrimination.

6. **Political Parties (UDF, BJP):** Utilized the issue to campaign against the LDF government, aligning themselves with the sentiments of protesting devotees for political gain.

**Significance for India and Constitutional Implications:**

This issue profoundly matters for India as it touches upon fundamental questions of constitutional morality versus religious faith. It highlights the tension between individual rights (especially gender equality) and community rights (freedom to manage religious affairs). The Supreme Court's judgment emphasized that 'essential religious practice' cannot violate fundamental rights. This concept of 'essentiality' has been a recurring theme in Indian jurisprudence, often used to determine which aspects of a religion are protected under Articles 25 and 26. The Sabarimala case also brought to the forefront the debate on judicial activism and its role in reforming religious practices. The strong public reaction also demonstrated the challenges of implementing progressive judicial pronouncements in a deeply traditional society, leading to questions about the state's capacity to enforce such orders without widespread social acceptance. It further fueled discussions on the uniform civil code, as the Sabarimala judgment underscored disparities in personal laws and practices.

**Future Implications:**

Despite the 2018 verdict, the legal battle is not over. Numerous review petitions were filed against the judgment, leading the Supreme Court in November 2019 to refer the matter to a larger nine-judge Constitution Bench. This larger bench is tasked with examining broader questions of law, including the scope of 'essential religious practices', the relationship between Articles 25 and 26, and the extent to which courts can intervene in religious matters. The outcome of this larger bench's deliberation will have far-reaching implications, potentially affecting other religious places and practices where gender or caste-based restrictions exist. Politically, while the CPI claims the campaign has lost relevance, the issue remains a potent symbol, capable of being revived during future elections, especially if there are new legal developments or attempts to enforce the original judgment. The CPI's mention of cooperating with the investigation regarding temple wealth also subtly shifts focus to governance and financial integrity, a common tactic in political discourse to counter religious-emotional narratives.

**Related Constitutional Articles, Acts, or Policies:**

* **Article 14:** Equality before law and equal protection of laws.

* **Article 15:** Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.

* **Article 21:** Protection of life and personal liberty.

* **Article 25:** Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion.

* **Article 26:** Freedom to manage religious affairs.

* **Article 32:** Right to constitutional remedies (used to approach the Supreme Court).

* **Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965:** The specific rule (Rule 3(b)) that was challenged and struck down.

* **Doctrine of Essential Religious Practice:** A legal doctrine developed by the Supreme Court to determine which practices are integral to a religion and thus protected under Articles 25 and 26. The Sabarimala case significantly re-evaluated its application.