CONSTITUTIONAL MORALITY VS. CUSTOMARY MORALITY IN THE CONTEXT OF RECENT SABARIMALA VERDICT. ANALYSE THE ROLE OF SUPREME COURT IN ACHIEVING GENDER JUSTICE.


            Gender justice seeks to achieve a life of dignity and freedom to women as a basic human right. It includes sharing of power and responsibility between women and men at home, in the workplace, and in the wider national and international communities.
            The Supreme Court recently asked the Kerala government to come out with an exclusive legislation regarding the administration of the historic Sabarimala temple.

Role of judiciary towards achieving gender justice:
1) Addressing sexual harassment at workplace: Supreme Court in a landmark judgement in the Vishakha and others v State of Rajasthan 1997 case gave ‘Vishakha guidelines’ which formed the basis for the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (“Sexual Harassment Act”).
2) Voluntary Health Association of Punjab vs. Union of India, 2013: Supreme Court issued guidelines for the effective implementation of Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994.
3) Shayara Bano v. Union of India & Others. 2017: Supreme Court in a 3:2 majority judgement, held the practice of triple talaq as unconstitutional.
4) Recent Verdict: A 5-judge Constitution bench, headed by the then Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, in a 3:2 majority verdict, had referred to a larger 7-judge bench the pleas seeking review of its historic 2018 judgement allowing women and girls of all ages to enter Kerala’s Sabarimala temple, along with other contentious issues of alleged discrimination against Muslim and Parsi women. The top court had not stayed the 2018 verdict that had allowed entry of girls and women of all ages into Sabarimala temple.

Challenges of judicial interventions:
1) Conflict between constitutional morality and customary morality: The ‘doctrine of essentiality’ allows courts taking upon themselves the responsibility of determining the essential and non-essential practices of a religion, which often creates a clash with religious beliefs and faith.
2) Addressing contentious issues may lead to judicial overreach: The Supreme Court had to modify its directions regarding formation of Family Welfare Committees, given in Rajesh Sharma v/s State of U.P, 2017 arguing that they are an extra-judicial authority, which cannot exercise powers and functions of police and court.
3) Opening up of Pandora’s Box: Judicial intervention in select cases would raise a demand for similar interventions against a number of unethical but permissive religious practices.
Measures needed:
1) Increasing women’s economic independence through improving financial literacy, access to financial services and assisting women to develop their employment prospects.
2) Working with vulnerable populations to enable the realization of sexual and reproductive health and rights.
3) Skill development through life skills education for low-income women equipping them with knowledge, skills and an understanding of their rights and entitlements enabling them to manage their lives better.

            It is essential to not only ensure women and girls are free from violence but that they have the agency, autonomy and self-determination to reach their potential and lead lives they value.