1. Supreme Court reserves judgment in Sabarimala Temple Case; a larger bench may be required

Supreme Court reserves judgment in Sabarimala Temple Case; a larger bench may be required

Supreme Court has reserved its judgement on the case as of now. The case is going on since 2016 when a petitioner filed a plea against ban on entry of menstruating women into Kerala's Sabarimala temple, the court said that "gender discrimination in such a matter is unacceptable".

By: | Published: February 20, 2017 4:57 PM
Supreme court of india, sc, sexual harassment case, sexual harassment, UP minister Gayatri Prajapati, Gayatri Prajapati, samajwadi party, sp government, uttar pradesh elections 2017, uttar pradesh elections, samajwadi party, sp Asking whether certain religious practices can be protected under the Constitution or not, the Supreme Court on Monday asked all the petitioners in the Sabarimala Case to file their submissions within a week. (ANI)

Asking whether certain religious practices can be protected under the Constitution or not, the Supreme Court on Monday asked all the petitioners in the Sabarimala Case to file their submissions within a week. So Supreme Court has reserved its judgement on the case as of now. The case is going on since 2016 when a petitioner filed a plea against ban on entry of menstruating women into Kerala’s Sabarimala temple, the court said that “gender discrimination in such a matter is unacceptable”.

There were several applications received by the apex court on Monday opposing the entry of women in Sabarimala Temple, which included individuals, independent legislatures in Kerala state, Raja of Pandala, who claimed to be representing the Brahmins of Kerala.

You May Also Like To Watch:

NewsX reported that the matter may be lengthened as now Supreme Court would include the new applications before passing any judgement. Many arguments are already in line to viewed. The Supreme Court also indicated that they would want to increase the number of the people in the bench hearing the case.

This case is similar to many such ongoing cases in the country like the entry of women in Haji Ali Dargah in Mumbai, or Shani Shingnapur in Maharashtra. The case might weigh its bearing on the other cases as well, as it is not only pertaining to religious practices in different religions, but mostly it is pertaining to women’s rights. Whether religious practices can override constitutional rights given to women, would be answered and this can be a landmark judgement. Faith of many cases would be directly or indirectly linked to this case.

  1. P
    Prof. Singh
    Feb 22, 2017 at 10:41 am
    The Supreme Court has no power to override religion or policy (read: self-restraint is practiced). It is not the work of Courts. That is the reason why we do not have Uniform Civil Code. Secularism is a Basic Structure of the Consution of India. It is not the secularism of France, which is the real secularism. Indian Secularism is an indifferent atude of the State towards all religions. State (including Parliament, Courts and Govt.) has nothing to do with religion and beliefs. India will have to become France to override religion. That will be an interesting turning point in our history and as a connoisseur of history and law, I will be looking forward to it.We proudly boast Article 14 of the Consution which states that all are Equal. But the same is not true in real sense in India. We practice discrimination openly, (based on caste, religion, race, cl, status, gender, disability etc) calling it with a fancy name, positive discrimination. Discrimination can never be positive, mind it. Legally, State can only provide Equal Opportunity, like the UN bodies and most western countries. Blacks do not get any concessions in the USA though they were treated like animals. There is no atrocity Law in the USA for a particular group. But India is different. We do not believe in real equality. The democracy (prajatantra) has turned out to be crowdocracy (bheedtantra).
    Reply

    Go to Top