Kerala on Wednesday told the Supreme Court that it has initiated the process for drafting a law exclusively for Sabarimala Temple’s management and sought more four weeks to complete the process in consultation with Attorney General for India, KK Venugopal.
A bench of justices NV Ramana, Sanjiv Khanna and Krishna Murari granted the request when senior counsel Jaideep Gupta, who represents the state, told the Supreme Court about the process and sought the extra time.
The submissions were made in a 2011 case related to the temple’s administration.
Kerala in August told the Supreme Court that it is mooting a separate law to deal with the administration of the temple. When the matter was heard in November, the court noted the state had not made any move to enact it. Instead, it placed draft amendments to the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act to deal with Sabarimala. The court disagreed with such a move and asked the state to enact a new law. The ownership of sacred ornaments belonging to the temple’s deity, Lord Ayyappa, also came up during the hearing on Wednesday.
A plea filed by members of the Pandalam Royal family stated that the ornaments belong to them as a whole. The family has two branches – Valiakoikkal and Kochukoikkal. It was alleged by the petitioners that the president, secretary, and treasurer of the Travancore Devaswom Board, who belong to the Valiakoikkal branch, were attempting to appropriate the sacred ornaments. The applicants sought a declaration that the ornaments belong to the Pandalam royal family as a whole. The court asked the state to inform the court about its stance on safe custody of ornaments. The matter will be heard again on February 7.
The Sabarimala Temple has been in the news since the Supreme Court in September 2018 opened the hill shrine to women of all ages. The practice of barring women in the 10 -50 age group is rooted in the belief that Lord Ayyappa is a celibate.
The Supreme Court in November 2019 had referred the matter to a larger bench in response to over 60 review petitions against the September 2018 judgment.
