The federal government’s change in stance over ladies’s entry to the Ayyappa temple at Sabarimala has raised many eyebrows. The portal for digital queue reserving states that girls and different genders (trans) beneath 50 and above 65 years won’t be allowed darshan.
The restriction has come up when the portal commenced reserving for added pilgrims being allowed for darshan through the week days and weekends through the remaining pilgrimage season.
When the temple was opened for pilgrimage on November 16, the federal government had introduced that kids beneath 10 years and folks above 65 years won’t be permitted to the temple due to COVID-19 restrictions. However, the sudden change within the stance of the federal government simply earlier than native physique polls has are available in for flak.
The brand new situation comes two years after the LDF authorities had given police assist for 2 younger ladies to go to the temple within the wake of the Supreme Court docket verdict. The federal government’s choice had are available in for opposition from devotees who needed to stay to the age-old customs of the temple.
The LDF authorities had additionally opposed the evaluation pleas filed in opposition to the September 28, 2018, verdict that allowed ladies entry to the temple. With the reported change in stance, the federal government and the TDB have gone again to preserving the age-old customs at Sabarimala.
Responding to the restrictions, TDB president N. Vasu mentioned on Friday that the portal was maintained by the Kerala Police since 2010. “Now we have not given any instruction to this impact. Furthermore, the entry of girls beneath 50 years is a non-issue now. We wish peaceable state of affairs to prevail at Sabarimala. There are a number of different urgent points earlier than us to be addressed for pilgrims,” Mr. Vasu mentioned.
“Nobody on this age group has evinced curiosity for darshan nor has come for the pilgrimage this season. Apart from media reviews, no organisation has raised it formally to this point. It’s nonetheless with the Supreme Court docket,” he added.