On June 16, the Supreme Court ruled that the Commissioner General of the Department for Registration of Persons violated the rights of a bhikkhuni by not issuing a National Identity Card (NIC) under the title Bhikkhuni.
The Department had refused to issue an identity card under the title Bhikkhuni to Ven. Welimada Dhammadinna Bhikkhuni, who had applied for a NIC to sit for the GCE Advanced Level examination.
She had received her Upasampada from the Rangiri Dambulu Rajamaha Vihara Sangha Sabawa (the Rangiri Dambulla Chapter of the Siyam Maha Nikaya).
The petitioner said the Department had used the title Silmatha instead of Bhikkhuni in the National Identity Card, without giving a proper reason for doing so.
The petitioner refused to accept the NIC with the title Silmatha and outlined the difficulties and obstacles bhikkhunis face due to this. The Supreme Court after hearing submissions issued an order to issue NICs to Bhikkhunis under the title Bhikkhuni instead of Silmatha.
Ven. Welimada Dhammadinna had said that not having an NIC had caused many problems, including not being able to obtain a passport to visit the birth place of the Buddha.
Chief Justice Murdu Fernando and Justice Gamini Amarasekera, in agreement, held that the petitioner’s Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 12(1) of the Constitution had been violated by the Commissioner General of the Department of Registration of Persons.
Though there were objections to this, stating that the Supreme Court should not interfere in religious matters, it is worth noting that on many occasions throughout history, the King has intervened in religious matters and even taken the lead in restoring the Upasampada.
The State has and is always working with religion.
Patriarchal nature
The patriarchal nature of the Bhikkhu Sabawa has been quite prominent in Sri Lankan society. Quoting scriptures has been a popular way to justify the inequality bhikkhunis face in Buddhist society. Claiming that even the Buddha was hesitant to give permission for a Chapter of nuns, as women are feeble and vulnerable to harassment is the basis of these inequalities.
Having different rules and practices for bhikkhunis is also a critical part of the bhikkhunis’ code of discipline. The Eight Garu Dharma has been used in the sense that “women are inferior to men” rather than in a sense of a spiritual practice.
“A nun who has been ordained even for a hundred years must greet respectfully, rise up from her seat, salute with joined palms, do proper homage to a monk ordained but that day.”
Those who use these arguments to marginalise bhikkhunis, never consider these rules to be anything other than a final verdict, an unquestionable order. Though a woman who wishes to become ordained has to undergo much more training than a man, her spiritual gains are normally looked down upon by society and bhikkhus.
Even though there is more than one statement and Sutta in the Tripitaka to prove the exact opposite of this, this inferiority has been thrust upon the life of bhikkhunis in Sri Lankan society.
Therefore, the Supreme Court order is of much importance. As this is not just an order against a single case of injustice but an order against centuries-long conditioning and marginalisation.
This order is a significant turning point in the battle for equality.
