Sabarimala temple case hearing: SC reserves judgement on review pleas challenging entry of women

By: |
New Delhi | Updated:Feb 06, 2019 4:00:15 pm

Sabarimala Review Petition: The Supreme Court is hearing petitions seeking review of its earlier judgement on Sabarimala temple today

Sabarimala Review Petition Live, Sabarimala TempleSabarimala Review Petition in Supreme Court Verdict Live In a landmark judgement last September, the top court had allowed women of all age groups to enter the temple in Kerala.

Sabarimala case hearing: The Supreme Court today began hearing petitions seeking a review of its earlier judgement allowing the entry of women of all ages to the Sabarimala temple in Kerala. In a landmark judgement last September, the top court had allowed women of all age groups to enter the temple in Kerala.

The review petions had necessitated after a number of groups has expressed their displeasure over the judgement, which saw a large number of protests across the state. A number of women who tried to enter, were not allowed to do so.

Four women who have filed review petitions are Reshma C V, Shanila, Bindu A and Kanakadurga. All petitioners hail from Kerala and are seeking to be heard as intervenors. All of them are in favour of the verdict. As many as 48 review petitions have been filed in the top court after the violence started in favour and against the verdict.

Of the four, who have files review petitions, Bindu (44)and Kanakadurga (42)were the first to have entered the hallowed precincts, after the apex court’s judgement of lifting the ban on entry of girls and women between the age group of 10 and 50 years of age, in shrine of Lord Ayyappa. Two others, Reshma (33)and Shanila 29), tried to enter the temple twice, first on January 15 and then on January 19. Both were prevented from entering the temple after which they had to discontinue.

“There are thousands of women waiting for Darshan at Sabarimala and are awaiting the final outcome of the review petitions when this court would be pleased to hear and finally decide. The applicants may be permitted to intervene and make their submissions before this court when the Review Petitions are heard by this court, in order to oppose the Reviews,” Reshma and Shanila said in their application.

Also read: Sabarimala Temple row: Legal precedents and gray areas on essential practices in the context of temple worship

Live Blog

15:36 (IST)06 Feb 2019
High time that a particular class not be discriminated, board told SC today

The Board, which also comprise the state government nominees, told a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi that it is high time that a particular class not be discriminated on the ground of "biological attributes".

15:31 (IST)06 Feb 2019
Travancore Devaswom Board has decided to support SC judgement: Rakesh Dwivedi

"The board has taken a conscious decision to support and respect the judgement of SC and implement it. The board thinks that is a right judgement in right direction AND it grants equality to women in the matters of worship, " Rakesh Dwivedi, counsel of Travancore Devaswom Board tells ANI

15:20 (IST)06 Feb 2019
This is what board told the court

The Board, which also comprise the state government nominees, told a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi that it is high time that a particular class not be discriminated on the ground of "biological attributes".

15:12 (IST)06 Feb 2019
Devaswom Board U-turn in SC

The Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB), which runs the historic Sabarimala temple in Kerala, took a U-turn in the Supreme Court on Wednesday by supporting its verdict which had allowed women of all age groups to enter the shrine.

15:05 (IST)06 Feb 2019
What Parasaran told the bench

The article 'throws open all public institutions of secular character for all classes of citizens but the article conspicuously omits religious institutions', he told the bench.  The top court is hearing review petition on its September 28 judgement in which it allowed all women to enter the Sabarimala Temple.

14:54 (IST)06 Feb 2019
K Parasaran appearing for the NSS

Former attorney general and senior advocate K Parasaran, appearing for the NSS, assailed the majority verdict, saying Article 15 of the Constitution throws open for all public the secular institutions of the country but it doesn't deal with religious institutions.

14:41 (IST)06 Feb 2019
Counsel for Kerala Devaswom Board arguing now

Rakesh Dwivedi, Counsel for Kerala Devaswom Board, is arguing now. Gender equality is most important, says Kerala Devaswom Board.

14:27 (IST)06 Feb 2019
Several organisations advanced arguments before SC bench

Several organisations including the Nair Service Society (NSS) and the Thantri of the shrine, have advanced arguments before the bench and sought reconsideration of the verdict. Former attorney general and senior advocate K Parasaran, appearing for the NSS, assailed the majority verdict, saying Article 15 of the Constitution throws open for all public the secular institutions of the country but it doesn't deal with religious institutions.

14:24 (IST)06 Feb 2019
Five-judge Constitution bench hearing review petition

A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi was told by the counsel for the Kerala government that no ground was made out in any of the petitions seeking review of its September 28, 2018 verdict.

14:04 (IST)06 Feb 2019
Kerala govt opposes pleas seeking review

The Kerala government Wednesday vehemently opposed in the Supreme Court a batch of petitions seeking review of the verdict allowing the entry of women of all ages into the Sabarimala shrine, even as several organisations argued that the judgement be reconsidered.

13:46 (IST)06 Feb 2019
Complete timeline of Sabarimala Temple issue

1990: Kerala resident S Mahendran filed plea in Kerala High Court seeking ban on women's entry to the temple.

April 5, 1991: Kerala High Court upheld the age-old restriction on women of menstrual age-group entering the temple.

August 4, 2006: Indian Young Lawyers Association files plea in Supreme Court seeking to ensure entry of women devotees between the age group of 10 to 50 at the Lord Ayappa Temple at Sabarimala.

November 2007: LDF government of Kerala files affidavit supporting PIL questioning ban on women’s entry.

January 11, 2016: Two-judge bench of Supreme Court questions practice banning entry of women at the temple.

February 6, 2016: Congress-led UDF government takes U-turn, tells Supreme Court it is duty bound to “protect the right to practice the religion of these devotees”.

April 11, 2016: Supreme Court says gender justice endangered by a ban on women.

April 13, 2016: Supreme Court says tradition cannot justify a ban on women’s entry.

April 21, 2016: Hind Navotthana Pratishtan and Narayanashrama Tapovanam files plea in Supreme Court supporting entry of women.

November 7, 2016: LDF government files a fresh affidavit in Supreme Court saying it favoured the entry of women of all age groups.

October 13, 2017: Supreme Court refers the case to Constitution bench.

October 27, 2017: Plea filed in Supreme Court for gender-equal bench to hear the case.

July 17, 2018: Five-judge Constitution bench starts hearing the matter.

July 19, 2018: Supreme Court says women have a fundamental right to enter the temple and questioned the rationale behind the age group.

July 24, 2018: Supreme Court made it clear that the ban on entry of women would be tested on “constitutional ethos”.

July 25, 2018: Nair Service Society tells Supreme Court the celibate nature of Sabarimala temple’s presiding deity Lord Ayyappa is protected by the Constitution.

July 26, 2018: Supreme Court observes it can’t remain oblivious to ban on entry of women as they were barred on “physiological ground” of menstruation.

July 31, 2018: Supreme Court says constitutional scheme prohibiting exclusion has “some value” in a “vibrant democracy”.

August 1, 2018: Supreme Court reserves verdict.

September 28, 2018: In 4:1 verdict, Supreme Court allows entry of women in Sabarimala temple, says banning females’ entry into the shrine is gender discrimination and the practice violates rights of Hindu women.

February 6, 2019: Supreme Court hears review petiotion in the case

13:44 (IST)06 Feb 2019
Counsel for Kerala state

Not hearing arguments is not a ground for review petition: Jaideep Gupta, counsel for Kerala state, had argued earlier.

13:28 (IST)06 Feb 2019
Court to resume hearing at 2 PM

Only one hour given for concluding all arguments today pertaining to Sabarimala case. The Supreme Court is hearing the review plea on its previous judgement in the case.

13:22 (IST)06 Feb 2019
Devotees don't visit temples to question the deity: V Giri

Devotees don't visit temples to question the deity, said V Giri earlier, during the hearing of the case.

13:19 (IST)06 Feb 2019
Temple does not bar women on gender basis: Abhishek Manu Singhvi

Sabarimala temple does not bar women on gender basis, the restriction is related to age, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Senior Advocate, argued earlier. The top court is hearing review petion on its Sabarimala verdict, where it permitted women of all age groups to enter the temple 

12:53 (IST)06 Feb 2019
Temple belongs to all: Counsel for Kerala state

A temple belongs to all, it is a public place. An individual temple does not amount to an essential practice of the religion of Hinduism.  #Sabarimala tradition cannot be considered as an essential practice of Hinduism: Counsel for Kerala state 

12:49 (IST)06 Feb 2019
No flaws in the verdict, says Counsel for Kerala state

No flaws in the verdict. Equality lies at the crux of the Sabarimala verdict, says Counsel for Kerala state argues.

12:45 (IST)06 Feb 2019
All review petitioner saying same thing: CJI

All review petitioners are saying the same thing, the others can make written submissions, says CJI Ranjan Gogoi wihile hearing the review petion on the Sabarimala verdict

12:23 (IST)06 Feb 2019
Six review petitions heard till 12 noon

At 12 PM noon, six review petitions heard so far against women's entry to Sabarimala temple. The top court his hearing review petition of its earlier judgement at the moment.

12:01 (IST)06 Feb 2019
Bramhana Sabha's arguement 

Activists have no right to decide how temple worship is to be conducted, says Bramhana Sabha argues during the review plea hearing in the Supreme Court today,

11:54 (IST)06 Feb 2019
Brahmana Sabha counsel begins argument

Brahmana Sabha counsel begins arguments in apex court.  The Supreme Court is hearing the review petition on its September's judgement in which it permitted  all women to enter the Sabarimala Temple. 

11:49 (IST)06 Feb 2019
Abhishek Singhvi says Hinduism has diverse traditions across all temples

Hinduism has diverse traditions across all temples, one cannot insist that only one type of tradition in all temples, or places of worship : Abhishek Singhvi, Senior Advocate

11:43 (IST)06 Feb 2019
Kanaka Durga had submitted complaint to Rajnath Singh

Kanaka Durga has Maoist links, destroyed family peace by entering Sabarimala temple, her mother submits complaint to Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh as per a Kerala Kaumudi news report

11:35 (IST)06 Feb 2019
Kanaka Durga's mother filed complaint to CBI

Kanaka Durga's mother has filed a similar complaint to CBI, requesting a detailed probe, as per Kerala Kaumudi news report.

11:33 (IST)06 Feb 2019
Every devotee has a right to worship the deity: V Giri

Every devotee has a right to worship the deity in the manner unique to the deity's nature: V. Giri, counsel for Sabarimala tantri concludes arguments.

11:28 (IST)06 Feb 2019
Counsel for Sabarimala tantri concludes arguments

Every devotee has a right to worship the deity in the manner unique to the deity's nature: V Giri, counsel for Sabarimala tantri concludes arguments. The hearing is on in the Supreme Court, in which it is hearing the review plea of its landmark judgement, in which the court had allowed the women of all age groups to enter the shrine.

11:14 (IST)06 Feb 2019
Article 17 should not have been given such an expansive interpretation: K Parasaran

Verdict flawed, Article 17 should not have been given such an expansive interpretation that went beyond original intent of Art 17, which is impermissible: Veteran senior advocate K Parasaran argues

11:13 (IST)06 Feb 2019

deleting_message

11:03 (IST)06 Feb 2019
Temples not public place: K Parasaran

'Temples are not public places. The argument of untouchability holds no basis in reference to Sabarimala traditions', says K Parasaran during the argument. the top court is hearing review petion of its landmark judgement on September 28 last year.

Also read: Sabarimala Temple Case: Wisdom and brilliance combined! Legislature is Bramha, Executive is Vishnu and Shiva is Judiciary, says K Parasaran

10:59 (IST)06 Feb 2019
Kanaka Durga says everyrthing will be solved

"I got the court order and I could enter my house. I am happy. I could not see my children today, but I hope I can see them next time. I don't have any difficulty to stay with them, they are not ready to stay with me. Everything will be solved," she was quoted as saying by ANI.

10:57 (IST)06 Feb 2019
Kanaka Durga entered in-laws house yesterday

Kanaka Durga, one of the two women who entered Sabarimala on 2 Jan, entered her in-law's house yesterday in Malappuram district after court allowed her to stay at her in-law's house. She was earlier allegedly assaulted by her mother-in-law for entering Sabarimala Temple.

10:50 (IST)06 Feb 2019
CJI asks what the flaws are

CJI Ranjan Gogoi asks review petitioners as to what the flaw is in the Sabarimala verdict and why the review petitioners should be heard. The court is hearing the review petition now.

10:47 (IST)06 Feb 2019
Parasaran calls verdict flawed

Veteran senior advocate K. Parasaran begins by saying that the verdict is 'flawed', he further submits that the majority is liable to be reviewed for failing to consider critical factual and legal submissions.  The Supreme court is a hearing plea on its landmark judgement in  Septmber.

Also read: Sabarimala Temple case: Hats off to K. Parasaran’s profound knowledge of Constitution and Dharma, says N Venkataraman, Senior Advocate

10:43 (IST)06 Feb 2019
Review petition hearing begins

Review petition hearing begins, veteran senior K. Parasaran begins by saying that the verdict is 'flawed' as key issues have not been examined.

10:29 (IST)06 Feb 2019
Prayers ahead of the review

In Sabarimala, 'nama japam' or prayer chants continue peacefully ahead of the review hearing before the apex court. The mood is electrifying in the temple town as Ayyappa devotees across the world are waiting for the verdict with hope.

10:18 (IST)06 Feb 2019
Will implement SC verdict: Kerala Government

The Kerala Government today said it will implement whatever the verdict of the top court would be. "Whatever the apex court verdict is, we will implement the same," Kerala Devaswom Minister Kadakampally Surendran has been quoted as saying.

10:11 (IST)06 Feb 2019
We are hopeful: Statement from Pandalam Palace as per local news channels

Releasing a statement ahead of the crucial hearing in the Supreme Court today on Sabarimala petition, the Pandalam Palace has come out with a statement. In its statement, the palace said, " We are hopeful." Since the verdict on September 28, last year, the palace said they are unhappy with the decision and hoped the verdict would be revised.

09:53 (IST)06 Feb 2019
Supreme Court to hear plea on Sabarimala today

The Supreme  Court today is all set to hear review petition on its September judgement removing the ban on women and girls between the age group from 10 to 50 from entering the temple.  the court will hear the plea filed by four women, who have hailed the judgment.

Sabarimala temple (File Photo)"The judgment of this court on September 28, 2018, upheld the dignity, liberty and equality of women of all ages and sent a strong message to the society against menstrual taboo. Proposed intervenors pray that they may also be heard to oppose the review, in case this court is inclined to review the judgment. It is in the interest of justice that the Proposed Intervenors are heard," Bindu and Kanakadurga said in their application.
FinancialExpress_1x1_Imp_Desktop