On Thursday (July 26th, 2018) Supreme Court of India continues to hear the case relating to entry of women into
Sabarimala Templeand said that we should not remain blind of the fact that the entry of women in the age group of 10-50 was banned on the “physiological ground” of menstruation.
The bench of Supreme Court of India comprising of
Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, Justice Rohinton Nariman, Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Indu Malhotra, termed as “impressive” the submissions of
advocate Sai Deepak, who was representing the People for Dharma and NGO Chetna that Lord Ayyappa is a "juristic person" has the right to preserve his "brahmacharya” character under the Constitution. However, the bench said that
“the court can't be oblivious to the fact of the case that a class of women is disallowed due to physiological reasons (menstruation).”
Further, the bench of justices who was hearing the plea of Indian young lawyers association and others who were challenging the ban on woman in Sabarimala Temple asked whether this practice is an “essential and integral” practice of a religious faith. While hearing Justice Chandrachud intervened and said “
I go beyond the essentiality test. Essentiality aspect has taken charge of Article 25 (freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion) under the Constitution, but it should not be so. Because of the fact that something is essential to the religion, it becomes inviolable,” and “
Due to this essentiality doctrine, judges, including the Supreme Court judges, are now assuming a ‘theological mantle,’ which we are not expected to do.” Earlier on 13th, Oct 2017, Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra referred the case of the ban of women’s entry into Sabarimala Temple on the grounds of infringement and discrimination of fundamental rights of women under Constitution.
To Do Complete Justice Under Art 142, Not Necessary to Refer to Facts to Decide Pure Questions of Law: SC [READ ORDER]
Judiciary
May 12, 2020
Parth Thummar
(
Editor: Ekta Joshi
)
68 Shares
A nine-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court headed by CJI had reserved its order on the maintainability of the reference of a question of law to a larger bench in a review petition of Sabarimala judgment on February 06, 2020, and for which order pronounced on February 10, 2020. On May 11, 2020, the SC has given a detailed explanation for its order. The Order authored by CJI held that there is no fetter on the exercise of discretion of the Supreme Court in referring questions of law to a...
What Is The Whole Sabarimala Issue Afterall?
Speak Legal
Feb 13, 2020
Lawstreet News Network
23 Shares
“Religion cannot be a cover to deny women the right to worship...To treat women as children of a lesser God is to blink at constitutional morality.”- Justice DY Chandrachud. The religious terminology: The Sabarimala temple is considered to be an abode of Lord Ayyappa, located in the Periyar Tiger Reserve in Pathanamthitta district of Kerala. The place is a heritage site dedicated to one of the largest annual pilgrimages in the world as every year, millions of people...
289 Views
![Criminal Appeal Cases to be Heard Physically from 1st October: Bombay HC [READ NOTICE]](https://lawstreet.co/secure/uploads/2020/10/lj_7123_bombay.jpeg)
Facebook Comments