Thiruvananthapuram, April 7 Congress leader Shashi Tharoor said on Tuesday that those interpreting the law must take faith into account, as he spoke about the Sabarimala women entry issue and the lessons learned from the controversy.
Speaking to the media here, the Thiruvananthapuram MP said he had written in detail about the matter earlier and urged people to read his views.
Referring to the controversy over the entry of menstruating age women into the Sabarimala Temple, Tharoor said the Left government in Kerala had realized its mistake.
"One of the very important lessons that the LDF government has learned... is that you cannot just act blindly, without regard to the particular wishes of the people and their faith," he said.
He emphasized that while the Constitution and the courts must be respected, they function within a society shaped by deep beliefs.
"We all support the Constitution. We all respect the Supreme Court. But the Constitution and the court serve a society where people have profound beliefs," he said.
Explaining the traditional practice at the hill shrine, Tharoor said, "As we all know, Lord Ayyappa in Sabarimala is an Nitya Brahmachari, and he has gone to that jungle shrine to avoid seeing women of menstruating age."
"And this is why, for centuries, it has been the practice that women under 50 are not normally welcome in the sanctum sanctorum of the shrine or in the precincts of the shrine. And this has been respected by all believers."
"Now, you may argue about the belief and you may say the belief is one thing or another. But the truth is that faith has always had its own yardsticks, which are different, because faith is based on belief, not on law," the Congress Working Committee member said.
Reiterating his key point, Tharoor said, "Those who are actually interpreting the law in the context of faith, have to understand and respect the faith of the people."
Referring to the events following the 2018 Supreme Court verdict, he said, "The LDF learned a very hard lesson when they disregarded the faith of the people and tried to enforce the judgment."
Tharoor noted that, in practice, "that judgment has not been enforced for several years now."
Welcoming the change in the state government's stand, Tharoor said, "The LDF has changed its position… that the traditional practice must be respected. We welcome that."
He added that changes in such matters should be gradual.
"If change is to come, it will come through the evolution of people and not by imposition either by judges or by chief ministers," Tharoor said.
At the same time, he said the government, which tried to forcefully implement the apex court verdict, owed an apology. "They need to give an apology to the people for the way they behaved back in 2018 and 19," he said.
Tharoor's remarks come as the Supreme Court resumes hearing the Sabarimala case along with other matters of faith.
The Centre, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, has argued that the issue falls within religious faith and should be left to denominations, not courts.
In September 2018, a five-judge Constitution bench, by a 4:1 majority verdict, had lifted the ban that prevented women between the ages of 10 and 50 from entering the Sabarimala Ayyappa temple and held that the centuries-old Hindu religious practice was illegal and unconstitutional.
On November 14, 2019, another five-judge bench headed by the then CJI Ranjan Gogoi, by a majority of 3:2, referred the issue of discrimination against women at various places of worship to a larger bench.
The bench had then framed broad issues on freedom across religions, saying they cannot be decided without any facts of the particular case.
Besides the Sabarimala case, the verdict also referred to the larger bench the issues of Muslim women's entry into mosques and dargahs, and the entry of Parsi women, married to non-Parsi men, to the holy fire place of an Agiary.
On February 16, the top court had said it would commence the final hearing in the matter on April 7, which was expected to conclude on April 22.
Earlier, the top court had read out seven questions it had framed on the scope of religious freedom.
