The recent Supreme Court verdict allowing the entry of women of all ages into the Sabarimala temple has created a huge uproar. Protests are on against the verdict and different bodies have appealed against the decision. While some support the verdict, a significant section of the population is upset and want the judgment overturned.
The verdict actually ensures the right to equality as envisaged in the Constitution. However, the Sabarimala case has divided the public. The right to practise one's religion is a fundamental right but the SC verdict is set to impact irrational practices such as discrimination and belief systems.
Religious belief could be irrational, but the Constitution and the judicial practices in a country have a rational basis. When judiciary interferes with devotees age-old beliefs they are bound to be angry. In a secular country isn't it prudent to let the believers believe in what they like and practise their unique customs?
Legislation and judicial interference in the religious sphere are tantamount to prodding believers to to change their belief and practices. Is that fair in a secular nation?