38.6c New Delhi, India, Sunday, April 14, 2024

Supreme Court Declines Urgent Hearing On Plea Seeking Review Of Sabarimala Temple Verdict

By LawStreet News Network      09 October, 2018 12:00 AM      0 Comments
Supreme Court Declines Urgent Hearing On Plea Seeking Review Of Sabarimala Temple Verdict

The Supreme Court on October 9, 2018, declined the urgent hearing of petitions seeking review of its ruling lifting age-old restrictions to allow entry of women, irrespective of their age, into the Sabarimala Ayyappa temple in Kerala.

A Bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi turned it down after advocate Mathews Nedumpara made a request for an urgent listing of review petitions.

The apex court also refused to stay the verdict.

Generally, review petitions are decided through a procedure called “hearing by circulation” in the chamber where parties are not represented by their advocates. But in exceptional cases, review petitions are heard in open court and parties can be represented by their advocates.

After a Constitution Bench comprising of then Chief JusticeDipakMisra and JusticesRohinton Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud, and Indu Malhotra by 4:1 majority lifted the restriction on the entry of women into the temple, four petitions were filed seeking a review of the Supreme Court’s verdict that has evoked a series of protests by women devotees.

The five-judge Constitution Bench declared the practice as unconstitutional. Justice Indu Malhotra, the lone woman on the Bench had dissented.

The review petitioners, including Nair Service Society and People for Dharma, said the apex court wrongly concluded that exclusion of women between the age of 10 and 50 was discriminatory.

“A clear perusal of the opinions rendered as part of the majority view shows that apart from patent legal errors, the factually erroneous assumption that the practice of the temple is based on notions of menstrual impurity has materially contributed to the majority view. This necessitates a review of the judgment,” read one of the petitions.

The petitioners submitted that to deny a religious denomination status to Sabarimala Temple and Lord Ayyappa’s devotees merely because they did not conform to Abrahamic notions of religious denominations, “is to defeat the very object of the absence of a definition and to abrahamise the core of the Hindu faith, which is unconstitutional”.

“In the present case, the subsequent events that transpired after the judgment of which judicial notice may be taken, clearly demonstrate that overwhelmingly large section of women worshippers are supporting the custom of prohibiting entry of females between the age of 10 and 50 at Sabarimala temple,” Nair Service Society said.

Further, contending that the verdict “sent shock waves among millions of Ayyappa devotees, Vijayan submitted, “The judgment under review is an interference with the faith and belief of millions of devotees of Lord Ayyappa, which the court is not empowered to do and certainly not without notice to them and without hearing them. The judgment dated September 28, 2018, is, therefore, one rendered void ab initio…”

Moreover, the petitioners also contended that the majority opinion erred in not considering the evidence placed on record which demonstrated that the practice was a direct consequence of the celibate form of Lord Ayyappa and the rules of Naishthika Brahmacharya which applied to the deity.

They said the court was not right in concluding that in all circumstances, the right of an individual must prevail over the rights of other individuals in a public place of worship.

The petitioners submitted that the majority verdict also erred in holding that devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a religious denomination within the meaning of Article 26 of the Constitution of India. They also questioned Justice Chandrachud’s conclusion that the practice in question amounted to untouchability under Article 17 of the Constitution of India.

Share this article:

User Avatar

Leave a feedback about this

Trending Interview
LSJ Exclusive Interview: How BJP govt will free Chhattisgarh from “Naxal menace”? [Watch Video]

What is Chhattisgarh govt's plan for solving the Maoist/Naxalite problem in the state? Will there be a surgical strike against the Naxals or solution will be found via diplomatic channels? Read the Exclusive Interview with the Deputy Chief Minister Vijay Sharma.

13 April, 2024 12:33 PM
Trending Judiciary
SC rejects review of order to pay Rs 1.54 Cr compensation to ex Air Force staff for transfusion of HIV infected blood [Read Order]

SC denies review of Rs 1.54 Cr HIV compensation order to ex-Air Force staff for medical negligence.

13 April, 2024 03:13 PM


Trending Judiciary
Very disturbed by latest trend of lawyers commenting on pending cases: CJI

Chief Justice of India urges lawyers to prioritize court and Constitution over political beliefs, expressing concern over trend of commenting on pending cases.

08 April, 2024 11:19 AM
Trending Judiciary
Court rejects plea for interim bail to BRS leader K Kavitha

Delhi court rejects interim bail plea for BRS leader K Kavitha in money laundering case related to Delhi liquor scam. ED opposes bail.

08 April, 2024 12:14 PM
Trending Judiciary
Centre questions growing tendency among States to approach SC for funds

The Centre questions the growing trend of states approaching the Supreme Court for funds, citing timing and advocating for resolution through dialogue.

08 April, 2024 03:58 PM
Trending Judiciary
SC notice to Centre on plea to safeguard interests of intersex children

Supreme Court issues notice to Centre on PIL for safeguarding intersex children's interests and regulating medical interventions. Details inside.

08 April, 2024 04:35 PM


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email