The courts must consider if they should give judgments that offend faith and are impossible to implement
The Supreme Court should ideally have been forewarned. After making two controversial pronouncements within a month, it was only to be expected that its orders would either be lampooned by many or defied with impunity. Since both the issues are related to matters of faith, the apex court may do well to reconsider how far it should go to intervene in such issues. Its verdict allowing the entry of women of all ages into the precincts of the Ayyappa Temple on Sabarimala Hill was predictably met with fierce resistance including from women of Kerala who claimed they had no wish to "desecrate” the abode of a celibate god. According to local belief, Ayyappa is a celibate deity and must not be “distracted” by the presence or touch of women of menstruating age; hence the age-old ban on women between the ages of 10 and 50 from entering the shrine. Rationalists, brought up on Westernised logic may consider this laughable as idols constructed in stone, wood or metal would generally be regarded as inanimate. But many Hindu devotees attribute human characteristics to idols once they are installed and a ritual called “pran-pratishtha”(bestowing of life) is conducted. In a country where even trees are often worshipped as sacred, it is not surprising that the Ayyappa idol evokes such strongly divine belief. In this background, the Supreme Court’s order opening the doors of the temple to both sexes irrespective of age, has fallen flat. No woman between the ages of contention was allowed to enter the shrine during the five days that its doors were opened this season. Judging by the vocal resistance to the apex court’s order, it is unlikely that the next spell of 30 days when the gates would open next month, will be any different.
Similarly, the judiciary’s attempt to enforce “green” laws on Diwali festivities seems pre-destined to failure. Only the learned judges may know how law-enforcement officers can prevent the bursting of firecrackers before 8 pm and after 10 pm as decreed by the apex court. The chances are that even police personnel entrusted to curtail Diwali festivities would join the revellers. Further, the idea of fixing the chemical content of firecrackers to ensure they do not emit toxic fumes and decibel levels stay within permissible parameters, may be a welcome stipulation, but would be impossible to enforce. The deeply-held belief that when Lord Ram returned to Ayodhya after slaying demon-king Ravana, he was greeted by lamps lit by the town’s residents who also burst crackers to ward off evil spirits on a moonless night, is so ingrained that no order issued by a 21st Century court can shake it. Thus, it will be seen as an unwarranted interference in the domain of public faith and robustly rebuffed. The court must reconsider its orders - that are certain to be rejected at the altar of faith and, in any case, are impossible to enforce - lest they bring the majesty of justice itself into disrepute.