News By/Courtesy: Khushboo Pareek | 05 Oct 2018 11:17am IST

HIGHLIGHTS

  • The Supreme Court on Friday abolished the century old practice of not allowing women to enter in Sabarimala Temple in Kerala.
  • The sole reason behind not allowing women in this particular temple is because the Lord's Avtar in this temple is considered to be a “Bhramchari”.
  • Though the judgment came out in favour of the women, there is still confusion among the critics regarding the interpretation of dissenting judgement of Justice Indu.

The Supreme Court on Friday abolished the century old practice of not allowing women to enter in Sabarimala Temple in Kerala. The judgment announced by 4:1 majority stated that the age ld practice of not allowing women to worship Lord Ayyappa is unconstitutional and promotes inequality. But the only judge to have a dissenting view is a women. Justice Indu Malhotra in her judgement uphelp the current worshipping practice followed by the people. There are five key reasons behind this judgement. First, She did not agree with the claim of the petitioners that they were not conferred with the right to worship Lord Ayyappa. She stated that there are around 100 temples of Lord Ayyappa where women are allowed and they have full fledged right of worshipping.

The sole reason behind not allowing women in this particular temple is because the Lord's Avtar in this temple is considered to be a “Bhramchari”. Hence, this is no right violated. Secondly, SheShe also stated that entertaining Public Interest Litigation over the religious matters can be against the fundamental principles of judiciary. It can cause harm to religious practices of people and secular fabric of the country. She also rejected the claim of the petitioners where they contented that this practice was against Article 17 which means prohibition of untouchability. She stated that Article 17 specifically talks about the discrimination on the basis of caste which was usually practiced upon Dalits. She also believed that this practice is not violative of Article 14 which talks about right to equality. She stated that The freedom to profess religion under Article 25 is bound by certain conditions and is not in any way prohibiting the principle of “Equality for all”. It was also added that according to her, a gender can lay down certain conditions to be followed while practicing any religion. If it seems that there is a valid code o conduct then it is not creating gender inequality.

Though the judgment came out in favour of the women, there is still confusion among the critics regarding the interpretation of dissenting judgement of Justice Indu.

Section Editor: Shreyashi Tiwari | 05 Oct 2018 11:19am IST


Tags : #Sabrimala #Judgment #DissentingOpinion #SC #InduMalhotra

Latest News