Everyone loves an electrifying argument and that is exactly what happened on Day 5 of the Sabarimala Temple case. Strong arguments were put forth by Mr. K. Parasaran, Senior Advocate, who has crossed 90 years and had almost stopped appearing in courts since 2016. The learned senior advocate’s appearance today in the Sabarimala Temple case triggered considerable excitement in the courtroom, as did his arguments against the petitioners in the case.
While making his argument in the Sabarimala temple case, Mr. K. Parasaran also said, “Legislature is Bramha, Executive is Vishnu and Shiva is Judiciary, because only Shiva’s ardhanarishawara form embodies Article 14, which is equal treatment of both sexes.”
Representing the Nair Service Society, Senior Advocate Mr. K.Parasaran made some compelling arguments before the SC Bench. The learned senior advocate dismissed the assumptions of male patriarchy as a reason for the exclusion of women’s entry, pointing out that with 96% of the women of Kerala being educated, independent, socially advanced and belonging to a matrilineal society, it is fundamentally incorrect to assume that the practice of the Sabarimala Temple is based on patriarchy.
He further dismissed the notions of misogyny pertaining to the practice, citing specific examples to establish that Hinduism follows a broad and liberal approach in its practice of the religion. According to the learned senior advocate Mr. K. Parasaran, Sati had no basis in Hindu faith and it is not comparable with the practice at the Sabarimala temple. He cited specific examples such as Dasaratha’s wives and Kunti not committing sati.
Mr. K. Parasaran submitted before the Bench that Lord Ayyappa is a yogi. To define who a Yogi is, he quoted Adi Sankara, read out portions from the Sundarakanda of the Ramayana to explain the concept of Naishtika Brahmacharya. He pointed out that the basis of the practice is the celibate nature of the Deity, not misogyny.
One of the statements he made is this, “If a person asks ‘can I smoke when I pray?’, he will get a slap. But if he asks, “can I pray as I smoke?, he will be appreciated. So, a right question will bring a right answer, a wrong question will bring a wrong answer.”
According to Mr.K. Parasaran, Article 15 does not apply to religious institutions and this is evident from the language of the Article itself. He specifically shows the rejection of the Amendment of Article 15 by the Constituent Assembly in connection with exclusion of religious places. Further to this, he cited that Article 25(2) deals only with the secular aspects and the right of entry of classes or sections and that even if Article 25(2) applies to women, he submitted that it is only with respect to social issues. Therefore, according to Mr. K. Parasaran, it does not apply to any religious aspects or the right of entry based on gender.
All eyes will be on the judgment pertaining to the Sabarimala temple entry case once the hearing is over.