English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Sabarimala review petition – Supreme Court reserves judgment

Published

7 years ago

on

Sabarimala review petition

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]The Supreme Court today (Wednesday, Feb 6) reserved its order on petitions seeking review of its judgment allowing women of all ages to enter Sabarimala Ayyappa temple.

A five-judge Constitution Bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and also comprising also comprising Justices RF Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra, heard the matter for over four hours.

Interestingly, the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) that manages the Ayyappa temple did a U-turn today to say that women of all age groups should be allowed to pray there.

The Devaswom Board told the apex court that it has no objection to the entry of women inside the temple and urged the people to “gracefully” abide by the apex court’s verdict.

“People who are opposing entry of women in 10-50 age group in Sabarimala temple should accept the SC verdict gracefully and allowing entry of all women inside temple,” Devaswom Board told SC.

The board, which also comprise state government nominees, told the Constitution Bench that it is high time that a particular class not be discriminated on the ground of “biological attributes”.

“Article 25 (1) equally entitles all persons to practice religion,” senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for TDB, told the Bench.

“Women cannot be excluded from any walk of life on biological attributes … equality is the dominant theme of the Constitution,” said Dwivedi adding that people should gracefully accept the apex court verdict.

The board had earlier vehemently opposed the PIL by Indian Young Lawyers Association saying that the celibate character of Lord Ayyappa at Sabarimala temple was a unique religious feature which was protected under the Constitution.

Speaking to reporters later, the TDB chief said that the board accepts the top court’s September 28 verdict and believes that there should not be any discrimination.

“Based on the verdict (September 28) we have decided not to file a review petition. The board accepts the SC verdict and if of the opinion that there shouldn’t be any discrimination,” TDB president A Padmakumar was quoted as saying by news agency ANI.

Several organisations including the Nair Service Society (NSS) and the Thantri of the shrine, have sought reconsideration of the verdict.

During the hearing, the petitioners argued that the court cannot force its views upon the people of Kerala who, it said, have not accepted the verdict. The petitioner also claimed that the apex court’s verdict has resulted in disturbing the social peace in the state.

The first to present the case was senior advocate K Parasaran, who was appearing for the Nair Service Society. Speaking for more than 20 minutes, he submitted that the Constitution bench had failed to deal with the interplay of the Constitution’s Preamble and Articles 15, 17 and 25 of Constitution. Parasaran highlighted that Article 15 (prohibition of discrimination), which threw open all public institutions of secular character to all classes of person, conspicuously omitted religious institutions and therefore it was an error to strike down a temple custom under Article 15.

He also asserted that the Supreme Court’s September judgment did not consider the crucial aspect that Article 15 (2) does not cover religious places. The omission to consider this aspect constitutes an error apparent on record, the counsel submitted.

He argued that the practice was limited to a particular age group, and therefore cannot be equated with untouchability — which excluded an entire class of people. Parasaran concluded saying that the exclusionary practise in Sabarimala is based on the character of the deity, which is that of Naishtika Brahmachari or permanent celibate.

Appearing for the chief priest or Thantri of the Sabarimala temple, senior advocate V Giri reiterated that right to pray has been in consonance with the nature and form of the deity. He argued that the restriction in Sabarimala had been based on the character of the deity. Advocate VV Giri argued that any person who asserts right under article 25(2)(b) to worship has to do it in consonance with the nature of deity.

The Kerala government, however, opposed the review petition, saying that it was in agreement with last year’s verdict and urged dismissal of petitions seeking review of the verdict.

Advocate Jaideep Gupta, appearing for the Kerala government, made it clear that the government was opposing the review petitions as no grounds had been made out for review.  The state government said that the ban on women entry is not part of “essential practice of Hinduism” which have the protection of the Constitution of India.

Gupta asserted that essential practice of religion and essential practice of a temple cannot be confused and that exclusion of women from a temple was not essential to Hindu religion. “Every temple may be having its own practice. Court cannot go into the essential practices of every temple. That would mean each temple is a denominational temple. That will lead to the destruction of essential religious practise test,” he argued.

The Kerala government’s counsel also opposed arguments put forward by various petitioners that it was a private issue. “It is about public law issue unless they argue that women between age 10 to 50 are not a class of Hindus,” Jaideep Gupta said.

He also told the bench that it should not consider the tension and violence that followed the judgment. “That social peace has been destroyed is not a ground for reviewing the judgment. Constitutional invalidity cannot be permitted to go on,” he argued.

“Social harmony will ultimately prevail in the state,” the state government told SC.

On September 28, a five-judge constitution bench, headed by the then CJI Dipak Misra, in a 4:1 verdict had paved the way for entry of women of all ages into the shrine, saying the ban amounted to gender discrimination.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

India News

BJP releases first list of 47 candidates for Kerala assembly polls

The BJP has released its first list of 47 candidates for the Kerala Assembly elections scheduled for April 9, including three former Union ministers.

Published

12 hours ago

on

March 16, 2026

By

BJP releases list of candidates

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) on Monday released its first list of 47 candidates for the upcoming Kerala Assembly elections scheduled for April 9.

Voting will take place for all 140 seats in the state assembly, with counting of votes scheduled for May 4. A party or coalition needs at least 70 seats to secure a majority in the House.

Among the candidates announced in the first list are three former Union ministers — Rajeev Chandrasekhar, V. Muraleedharan and George Kurian.

Key candidates announced

Kerala BJP chief and former Union minister Rajeev Chandrasekhar has been fielded from the Nemom assembly constituency. In the 2024 Lok Sabha election, Chandrasekhar lost the Thiruvananthapuram seat to three-time MP Shashi Tharoor, but he led in the Nemom assembly segment during that contest. The party believes this performance strengthens its prospects in the constituency.

Nemom has held political significance for the BJP since 2016, when senior leader O. Rajagopal won the seat and became the party’s first-ever MLA in the 140-member Kerala Legislative Assembly. The victory marked the BJP’s initial breakthrough in the state assembly.

However, the seat returned to the Left camp in the 2021 Assembly election when V. Sivankutty defeated BJP leader Kummanam Rajasekharan.

Former Union minister V. Muraleedharan will contest from the Kazhakoottam constituency, while George Kurian has been nominated from Kanjirappally.

Other candidates in the list

According to the list released by the party, several other candidates have also been announced for key constituencies. P. C. George will contest from Poonjar, R. Sreelekha from Vattiyoorkavu and Padmaja Venugopal from Thrissur.

The BJP has also nominated Sobha Surendran from Palakkad, Navya Haridas from Kozhikode North and Kavitha K. S. from Sulthanbathery, a reserved constituency.

Raji Prasad will contest from the Kunnathur seat reserved for Scheduled Castes, while R. Rashmi has been fielded from Kottarakkara.

Political backdrop in Kerala

Kerala’s electoral politics has traditionally alternated between the Left Democratic Front (LDF) and the Congress-led United Democratic Front (UDF). However, the BJP has been attempting to expand its presence in the state.

The alternating trend was interrupted in the 2021 Assembly election when the electorate returned the Pinarayi Vijayan-led government to power for a second consecutive term.

The BJP believes recent electoral performances and local body successes have strengthened its position as it prepares to contest the upcoming assembly polls.

Continue Reading

India News

Fire in ICU at SCB medical college hospital in Cuttack kills 10 patients

Ten patients died after a fire broke out in the trauma ICU at SCB medical college hospital in Cuttack early Monday morning. Odisha Chief Minister Mohan Charan Majhi announced compensation and ordered a judicial probe.

Published

22 hours ago

on

March 16, 2026

By

A major fire at the trauma care intensive care unit (ICU) of SCB Medical College and Hospital in Cuttack, Odisha, early Monday morning left ten patients dead and several hospital staff members injured.

According to officials, the fire broke out between 2:30 am and 3:00 am in the trauma ICU where critically ill patients were undergoing treatment. Emergency teams rushed to the scene soon after the incident, and multiple fire engines were deployed to control the blaze and assist in rescue operations.

Odisha Chief Minister Mohan Charan Majhi said hospital staff were injured while evacuating patients from the affected ward during the emergency.

Patients shifted as rescue operations continued

Following the fire, 23 patients were moved to other departments and wards within the hospital to ensure their safety and continued medical care.

Speaking to reporters, the Chief Minister said seven critically ill patients died while being shifted to other ICUs and wards, while three more succumbed later.

“A total of 23 patients have been shifted to other departments. Seven serious patients died while shifting to other ICUs and wards, while another three patients died later. I have directed the concerned officers for proper treatment of the injured patients,” Majhi said.

Chief minister visits hospital, announces compensation

Soon after the incident, Majhi visited the hospital along with Odisha Health Minister Mukesh Mahaling to review the situation. They also met patients who were undergoing treatment at the facility.

The Chief Minister announced financial assistance of ₹25 lakh for the families of each deceased patient.

He also ordered a judicial probe into the incident to determine the cause of the fire and examine safety measures at the hospital.

Authorities continue to monitor the condition of injured staff members and patients who were shifted from the ICU.

Continue Reading

India News

Arvind Kejriwal moves Supreme Court against Delhi High Court order in excise policy case

Arvind Kejriwal has approached the Supreme Court challenging a Delhi High Court order related to proceedings in the excise policy case and alleging violation of his fundamental rights.

Published

22 hours ago

on

March 16, 2026

By

Arvind Kejriwal

Aam Aadmi Party chief and former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal has approached the Supreme Court of India challenging certain proceedings in the Delhi excise policy case and alleging a violation of his fundamental rights.

In a petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, Kejriwal has questioned a decision of the Delhi High Court that put a freeze on remarks related to the investigation conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation.

The petition also challenges an order of the High Court Chief Justice rejecting Kejriwal’s request to transfer the case to another bench.

Plea seeks change of bench

Earlier, on March 11, Kejriwal and several others submitted a representation to Delhi High Court Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya seeking reassignment of the case to what they described as an “impartial” judge.

In the representation, Kejriwal stated that he had a “grave, bona fide and reasonable apprehension” that the matter may not receive an impartial hearing before the current bench.

However, the Chief Justice declined the request and said the petition had been assigned as per the existing roster.

According to the communication sent by the High Court’s Registrar General on March 13 to eight individuals including Kejriwal, the Chief Justice noted that any decision on recusal must be taken by the judge hearing the matter and that there was no reason to transfer the petition administratively.

Order on trial court proceedings also challenged

Kejriwal has also challenged a March 9 order passed by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court.

In that order, Justice Sharma had stayed a trial court direction that called for an investigation into a CBI officer who handled the excise policy case. The High Court had also asked the trial court to defer proceedings connected to the anti-money laundering aspect of the case.

Justice Sharma had further rejected certain observations made by the trial court while discharging Kejriwal and 22 others, stating that some of those remarks were erroneous.

Hearing expected on CBI plea

Meanwhile, Justice Sharma is scheduled to hear a petition filed by the CBI challenging the discharge of Kejriwal, former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia and others in the excise policy case.

The matter remains under judicial consideration as the legal challenge now moves to the Supreme Court.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com