More than ten days after activist Rehana Fathima stirred controversy by attempting enter the Sabarimala Temple, she moved the Kerala High Court seeking anticipatory bail.
A case was registered against her by the Pathanamthitta police under section 295A (deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs) of the IPC.
The complaint was filed by the Sabarimala Samrakshana Samithi, which alleged that Fathima’s social media posts had hurt religious sentiments.
According to a report by The Times of India (TOI), Rehana said in the plea that none of the requirements for registering a case under Section 295A have been satisfied and that she has nothing to do with the alleged crime.
In her plea, she states that she had expressed her intent to go to Sabarimala on Facebook and that on 18 October, she had informed the Pathanamthitta district collector and IG Manoj Abraham that she wants to visit the temple after which she was assured protection.
Rehana Fathima made the headlines as she was one of the few women who tried to enter the Sabarimala sanctum to offer her prayers to the deity. She was given special protection by policemen who escorted her till Nadapanthal, 500 metres from the shrine.
She was dressed like Ayyappa, in black clothes, carrying the irumudikettu (the two-layered sacred bundle without which devotees cannot enter the temple). Her partner, Manoj Sreedhar, said that she had observed a 21-day fast as per the customs and practices.
However, due to massive protests by devotees and priests, and threats from the thantri to shut down the temple if women enter, she had to return without praying.
Rehana’s house in Ernakulam was later vandalised as news spread that she attempted to enter the temple.
This article is published in arrangement with The News Minute.
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)