DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW

UNIVERSITY

LUCKNOW

FINAL DRAFT ON

THE TEMPLE ENTRY MOVEMENT IN INDIA

SUBMITTED TO- SUBMITTED BY-

MR. SHASHANK SHEKHAR GARIMA VERMA

ASSISTANT PROFFRSSOR (LAW) 170101058

(Basics of Legislation) 1st SEMESTER

SESSION: 2017-18
 CONTENTS

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . 3

Statement of problem . . . . . . . 4

Objectives of Research . . . . . . . 4

Research methodology . . . . . . . 4

Citations and Footnoting . . . . . . 5

Literature review . . . . . . . . 5

Prelude . . . . . . . . . 6

Chapter 1: The history of the temple entry movement in India 7

Chapter 2: The present temple entry movement . . 9

Chapter 3: Challenges that still remain . . . . 12

Chapter 4: Recent Developments . . . . . 13

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . 14

Bibliography . . . . . . . . 15

Page | 2
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This project would not have been possible without the help I received from
various ends. My sincere thanks, to Mr. Shashank Shekhar, for introducing us
to legal research and its methods, and giving us an opportunity to research in
our areas of interest. There can be no other better way to learn.

Gratitude is also due to my roommate and my friends, who kept the positivity
in me alive and always urged me on. Without their encouragement, this work
would not have taken shape.

I also wish to acknowledge the Madhu Limaye Library, for providing me all
the sources I needed. It is certainly a blessing to have on campus, a library so
equipped, that one does not need to wander anywhere in search of relevant
material.

Thank you!

Page | 3
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

History holds that the temple entry movement in India started with the Vaikom
Satyagraha in 1924, led by Gandhi in the Kottayam district of Travancore,
now Kerala. The issue was that the ‘shudras’ were not allowed to enter
temples because of the belief that they would malign the sanctity of the place.
The present day temple entry movement is based on the issue that women of
the age group 12 to 50 years are impure and if they enter certain temples, the
sanctity of the temples would wane. Has the temple entry movement in India
mutated from being caste-based to gender-based?

OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH

This projects aims to determine the causes and outcomes of the temple entry
movement of the past as well as the present, and how has the movement
mutated from being a caste-based one to being a gender-based one. The
project also tries to investigate the challenges which still remain in order for
this movement to be successful.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The researcher has implied the use of doctrinal research methodology in the
making of this project. Various sources like SCC Online, Manupatra, other
online blogs and journals, newspaper reports and articles have been referred to
in putting together the information contained in this project. The researcher
has also used her knowledge of the religious texts and Hindu mythology to

Page | 4
explain better, the situations and scenarios. The holy Quran and the Hadiths of
Islam have also been referred.

CITATIONS AND FOOTNOTING

A uniform Oxford University Standard for the Citation of Legal Authorities

(OSCOLA) citation format has been used throughout the project.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The researcher has gone through various cases on the matter at hand, which
have helped her to understand better the concepts of law and drafting.

The legislations and statutes pertaining to these cases were also referred to
thoroughly, which have made better, the researcher’s understanding of drafting
and contents of legislation.

The ability to read and interpret the fundamental rights, the procedures of
writs petitions and PILs of the researcher have also improved with
understanding the application of the constitution of India to the present area of
research.

The religious texts of the Hindus and the Muslims have also been referred,
which have enhanced the researcher’s understanding of both these religions.

Page | 5
 PRELUDE

According to history, the temple entry movement in India was a caste-based

movement, based mainly on the issues of the shudras, who were not allowed
to worship inside temples, because their presence was seen as a disgrace to the
holy places. This injustice can be attributed to the concept of untouchability
which was rampant then. Therefore, the movement back then was caste-based
and class-centric.

Over the years, the status of women has gone down. From being equals to
men, they came to be the most oppressed sections of the societies, and were
seen as dispensable. Most of their rights were curtailed on grounds of
propriety, and this could have been the reason of the practices of disallowing
women from praying inside the sanctum sanctorum of the temples, while men
were permitted to do so. This might have led to the mutation of the movement
from being a caste-based one to being a gender-based one.

Page | 6
CHAPTER 1: THE HISTORY OF TEMPLE ENTRY
MOVEMENT IN INDIA

The temple entry movement is not new to India. It dates back to the 1880’s,
when a group of about 200 Ezhavas, a tribe of coconut and toddy-tappers
organized themselves and attempted to enter a temple in district Kottayam of
Travancore, now Kerala1. The movement was unsuccessful, but it led to
people becoming aware of their rights and coming together to form the Sri
Narayan Dharma Paripalan Yogam, under Sri Narayan Guru. This
organization professed ‘One God, One Caste, One Religion’. It was by the
efforts of this organization that the first temple by the harijans was built in the
Aravipuram district of Kerala2.

Later on, in accordance with his movement against untouchability, Gandhi ji

led the Vaikom Satyagraha in 1924, against untouchability in the Hindu
society. The movement was centred at the Shiva temple at Vaikom, near
Kottayam. The Satyagraha aimed at securing freedom of movement for all
sections of society through the public roads leading to the Sri Mahadevar
Temple at Vaikom3. This Satyagraha fetched the support of A. K. Gopalan,
Krishna Pillai, and C. N. Annadorai, who later on formed the D.M.K.

1 ‘Vaikom Satyagraha’, Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaikom_Satyagraha>

accessed 23 October 2017.
2 Temple Entry Movements [2016] General Knowledge Today <https://www.gktoday.in/temple-entry-
movements/> accessed 23 October 2017.
3 ibid 1.
Page | 7
Around the same time, in 1925, E. V. Ramaswamy Naicker brought forth the
Self Respect Movement through his newspaper, ‘Kudi Arasu’, against the
same issues.4
As a result of these movements, in November 1936, the Maharaja of
Travancore, Balarama Varma, issued a proclamation5 throwing open all
government controlled temples to all Hindus irrespective of caste. Madras also
followed suit.6 The efforts of A. Vaidyanatha Iyer, who was an Indian activist,
politician and freedom-fighter who spearheaded the temple entry movement in
Madras Presidency in 1939, led to the Temple Entry Authorization and
Indemnity Act7, which opened temples for everybody irrespective of caste.
Thus, it is evident enough that the temple entry movement back then, was a
caste-based one.

4 ‘Kudi Arasu’, Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kudi_Arasu> accessed 23

October 2017.
5 Travancore Temple Entry Proclamation 1936.
6 ibid 2.
7 The Temple Entry Authorization and Indemnity Act 1939.
Page | 8
CHAPTER 2: THE PRESENT TEMPLE ENTRY
MOVEMENT

The present-day temple entry movement deals with the social issue of women
of a specific age group of 12 to 50 years not being allowed inside the sanctum
sanctorum of some temples because of the notion that the women of this age
group are impure, for the reason that they menstruate. The movement against
this injustice started in 2010, with the formation of the Bhumata Rangaragini
Brigade, under the leadership of Trupti Desai. This organization led various
protests against the ban on entry of women in some temples.

i. The Shani Shignapur Temple

The Shani Shignapur temple is located in Nevasa village of Ahmednagar.

Women of the age group 12 to 50 years were not allowed to enter into the
sanctum sanctorum of the temple. A PIL was filed in the Bombay High Court
by Neelima Vartak and Vidya Bal. On April 1, 2016, the High Court Bench of
Chief Justice D. H. Waghela and Justice M. S. Sonak ruled that women be
allowed inside the sanctum sanctorum of the temple. The legislation applied in
this case was the Maharashtra Hindu Places of Worship Authorisation of Entry
Act8. The then chief justice of Bombay high court ruled that the government
was duty bound to prevent any discrimination based on gender, keeping in
view the provisions of the articles 15, 25 and 51(a) of the constitution, the
Government should take proactive steps to ensure that the
fundamental rights of women are protected and not allowed to be encroached
upon by any authority or individual9.
8 The Maharashtra Hindu Places of Worship Authorisation of Entry Act 1956.
9 Smt.Vidya Bal & Anr. v The State of Maharashtra & Ors. PIL no. 55 of 2016.
Page | 9
 ii. The Sabrimala Yatra and Temple

The Sabrimala temple is located in the village Perunad of district

Patthanamtittha, inside the Periyar Tiger Reserve, Kerala. It is dedicated to
Lord Ayyappan, son of Lord Harihara, who is considered an incarnation of
both Lord Shiva and Lord Vishnu, according to the Hindu Mythology. Women
were not allowed to enter this temple or participate in the Sabrimala Yatra. It
had been a point of discussion in the Kerala High Court since 1981. A writ
petition, under article 32 of the constitution, was filed in the Supreme Court of
India, by the Young Lawyers Association, supported by the Bhumata
Rangaragini Brigade. The Supreme Court ruled that this was discrimination on
grounds of gender and women should not be restricted from entering the
temple. The legislation which was in question was the Kerala Hindu Places of
Worship Authorisation of Temple Entry Act10, the rule 3(b) of which is as
follows,

Rule 3. The classes of persons mentioned here under shall not be entitled to
offer worship in any place of public worship or bath in or use the water of any
sacred tank, well, spring or water course appurtenant to a place of public
worship whether situate within or outside precincts thereof, or any sacred
place including a hill or hill lock, or a road, street or pathways which is
requisite for obtaining access to the place of public worship-
(…)
(b) Women at such time during which they are not by custom and usage
allowed to enter a place of public worship.11

10The Kerala Hindu Places of Worship Authorisation of Temple Entry Act 1965.
11 ibid 10.
Page | 10
In its judgement in 2016, the supreme court held that in none of the sacred
literature, the Gita, or the Vedas, is there any proof of discrimination on the
grounds of gender to support the Travancore Devasam Board, which restricts
women of the age group 12 to 50 years from the Yatra12. Thus, the Sabrimala
Yatra and the temple was opened for women after 1500 years.

12 Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. v State of Kerala & Ors. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 373 of 2006.
Page | 11
CHAPTER 3: CHALLEGES THAT STILL REMAIN

There are still some temples where women are not allowed inside the sanctum
sanctorum of the temple. Some examples are-

i. The Mangal Chandi Temple, Bokaro, where women are not

permitted within 10 feet of the idol.

ii. The Kartikeya Temple, Kurukshetra, where women are not

permitted inside the temple.

iii. Bimalakhanda Shaktipeeth, Puri, which is situated in the

Jagannatha temple complex, Orrisa, where women are not allowed to
worship, despite the fact that it is a temple of goddess Kali.

Page | 12
CHAPTER 4: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

There have been certain recent developments, which cannot be skipped while
talking about the temple entry movement.

The Haji Ali Dargah, where women were allowed to enter the sanctum
sanctorum of the great Sufi saint prior to 2011-2012, disallowed the entry of
women into the sanctorum after 2012, claiming that women wore blouses with
wide necks bend on the mazaar, thus showing their breasts, and that in Islam,
the entry of women into the sanctum sanctorum of a Sufi saint was a sin as
women were impure.13 The office bearers of the Bharatiya Muslim Mahilla
Aandolan, Dr. Noorjehan Safia Niaz and Zakia Soman filed a PIL in the
Bombay High Court against the restrictions imposed by the Haji Ali trust. The
Court held that prohibiting women from entering the sanctum sanctorum of
the Haji Ali Dargah contravenes Articles 14, 15 and 25 of the Constitution,
and restored the status-quo ante i.e. women be allowed to enter the sanctum
sanctorum at par with men.14 The Haji Ali Dargah was opened again for
women in August 2016.

Despite the fact that this instance is from a different background and religion,
it is of much significance because of its similar nature with the present temple
entry movement and the laws which apply are same in both the movements.

13 Dr. Noorjehan Safia Niaz and Zakia Soman v State of Maharashtra and Haji Ali Dargah Trust PIL No. 106
of 2014.
14 ibid 13.
Page | 13
 CONCLUSION

It is evident from instances in history, that any movement or revolution starts

when those in power, abuse their powers and oppress those beneath them in
station. During the temple entry movement in history, the harijans and the
shudras were the most oppressed classes of the societies. Therefore, the
movement originated amongst them and was carried forward by them.

We are also well aware of the fact that the status of women has gone down
over the years in history, where they came to be seen as dispensable
commodities. Gradually, their rights were curtailed. These unfair beliefs of the
patriarchal society could have led to the practices of considering women
impure and detrimental to the sanctity of temples. The reasons given, that of
women are impure because that they menstruate are just lame excuses to hide
behind. It is nowhere mentioned in the religious texts of either the Muslims or
the Hindus, that a woman is impure and cannot be allowed to pray just
because she menstruates. The only place where these practices find mention is
the Manusmriti, which is the creation of a man who had stark patriarchal
beliefs. If a menstruating woman is impure, then what is a man who is born
out of the same woman’s womb? Is he not impure? The irony is, that
murderers and thieves are all permitted inside temples, but bleeding women
aren’t.

According to a verse from the Hadiths, Aisha said,

The Messenger of Allah (Peace be upon him) ordered me that I should get him
the mat from the mosque. I said: I am menstruating. He (the Holy Prophet)
said: Do get me that, for your menstruation is not in your hand.”15

15 Sahih Muslim Vol. 1, Book 3, Hadith 588.

Page | 14
It can be concluded therefore, that yes, the temple entry movement in India
has mutated from being a caste-centric one to being a gender-centric one, but
the essence of it is unchanged. The reason behind both these movements is the
oppression of a section of the society and the violation of the rights that
section enjoys at par with everybody else, as guaranteed by the constitution of
India.

It can also be concluded that this movement is in good faith, as it promises to

take us a step closer to an equal status of women with men in the future, not
only on record, but in reality.

Page | 15
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. The Constitution of India as amended by The Constitution (One Hundredth

Amendment) Act, 2015: Bare Act with Short Notes (LexisNexis 2016).

2. V. N. Shukla, Constitution of India (Mahendra P. Singh ed, 11th edn, EBC

2011).

3. ‘Vaikom Satyagraha’, Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaikom_Satyagraha> accessed 23 October
2017.

4. Temple Entry Movements [2016] General Knowledge Today

<https://www.gktoday.in/temple-entry-movements/> accessed 23 October
2017.

5. ‘Kudi Arasu’, Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kudi_Arasu> accessed 23 October 2017.

6. Travancore Temple Entry Proclamation 1936.

7. The Temple Entry Authorization and Indemnity Act 1939.

8. The Maharashtra Hindu Places of Worship Authorisation of Entry Act 1956.

9. Smt.Vidya Bal & Anr. v The State of Maharashtra & Ors. PIL no. 55 of 2016.

10.The Kerala Hindu Places of Worship Authorisation of Temple Entry Act

1965.

Page | 16
11.Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. v State of Kerala & Ors. Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 373 of 2006.

12.Dr. Noorjehan Safia Niaz and Zakia Soman v State of Maharashtra and Haji
Ali Dargah Trust PIL No. 106 of 2014.

13.Sahih Muslim Vol. 1, Book 3, Hadith 588.

Page | 17