English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Sabarimala review petition – Supreme Court reserves judgment

Published

8 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

Delhi Police offers 11-person limit for CJP’s Connaught Place protest

Delhi Police has offered to facilitate a group of 11 people at Central Park in Connaught Place for the Cockroach Janata Party’s October 16 protest, while warning that violations of prohibitory orders could invite legal action.

Published

3 hours ago

on

October 15, 2026

By

CJP protest to continue

Delhi Police has proposed allowing a group of 11 people to carry the national flag and sing the national anthem at Central Park in Connaught Place on October 16, ahead of a protest called by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) over alleged electoral fraud.

The police said it could facilitate the group at a suitable place in the park, while appealing to the public not to join the proposed gathering in large numbers. The offer comes amid prohibitory orders in Connaught Place and adjoining areas under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke has called on people to assemble at Central Park at 5 pm on Friday with the national flag. The proposed demonstration, named “Lehra Do Tiranga”, follows the detention of CJP members Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka during an earlier protest.

Why Delhi Police proposed limiting the gathering

In its statement, Delhi Police cited the prevailing security and law-and-order situation in the area. It also referred to information from the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) that Central Park would remain closed on October 16 and 17 for administrative reasons.

Deputy Commissioner of Police Neha Yadav said the NDMC had informed the police about the closure and had asked that no gathering be allowed near the park.

The police also cited representations from trader and market associations in Connaught Place and surrounding areas. According to the police, the associations had raised concerns about unlawful assemblies and their impact on businesses, particularly during the festive season.

Police warned that violations of Section 163 BNSS would invite appropriate legal action. It also stressed that the national flag must be displayed and carried, and the national anthem sung, in the prescribed manner with due respect and dignity.

Delhi High Court declines to stop CJP protest

The proposed gathering reached the Delhi High Court after a vendor sought intervention over concerns about disruption to businesses and public movement in Connaught Place.

On Thursday, the court declined to restrain the CJP from holding the protest. It recorded the police’s assurance that all possible measures under the law would be taken to regulate the gathering and maintain peace.

The petition was filed by a vendor at Palika Bazar in Connaught Place, who raised concerns about the potential impact of the demonstration on traders and others working in the area.

Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, appearing for the authorities, told the court that steps had already been taken to regulate the proposed protest.

CJP’s protest call follows detention of party members

Dipke’s October 16 protest call follows earlier demonstrations over alleged electoral fraud. CJP members Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka are in jail on trespass charges after raising the national flag at Jantar Mantar earlier this week, according to the report.

The party has been protesting over alleged electoral fraud and has raised questions about the Election Commission.

Dipke has urged people to gather at Central Park with the national flag, arguing that raising the Tricolour should not be treated as a crime.

The police’s proposal to facilitate a group of 11 people came as the authorities sought to prevent a larger gathering at the site. The CJP’s response to the police’s offer was still awaited in the report published on October 15.

Continue Reading

India News

Actor Imran Khan asked to leave India after CJP protest

Actor Imran Khan has been asked to leave India by October 28, days after participating in a protest called by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) in Mumbai.

Published

4 hours ago

on

October 15, 2026

By

Actor Imran Khan, nephew of Bollywood star Aamir Khan, has been asked to leave India by the Mumbai Police, days after participating in a protest organised by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) in Mumbai.

According to the notice, the actor has been given until October 28 to leave the country. The development follows his participation in the demonstration, which brought the actor into the spotlight over his involvement in a political protest.

Imran Khan is believed to hold US citizenship and an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card rather than full Indian citizenship, according to the report.

What led to the notice against Imran Khan?

The notice came days after Imran Khan joined a protest called by the CJP in Mumbai. The group, described as a satirical political organisation, had called for the demonstration.

The actor’s participation was followed by action from the authorities, with the Mumbai Police directing him to leave India by the specified deadline.

The notice does not, by itself, mean that the actor has already left the country or has been deported. October 28 is the deadline mentioned for his departure.

Imran Khan and his citizenship status

Imran Khan is known for his work in Hindi films, including Jaane Tu… Ya Jaane Na and Delhi Belly. He is also the nephew of actor Aamir Khan.

The report states that Imran Khan is believed to be a US citizen and hold an OCI card. OCI status does not confer Indian citizenship, although it provides eligible foreign citizens of Indian origin with specified privileges under Indian law.

The notice directing the actor to leave India follows his participation in the Mumbai protest. The reported development has brought attention to the intersection of immigration rules and the participation of foreign nationals in political demonstrations.

Continue Reading

India News

Election Commission orders voter roll revision in 17 states, UTs

The Election Commission has ordered a Special Summary Revision of electoral rolls in 17 states and Union Territories. Draft rolls are scheduled for November 12, with final rolls due on January 4, 2027.

Published

4 hours ago

on

October 15, 2026

By

The Election Commission of India (ECI) has ordered a Special Summary Revision (SSR) of electoral rolls in 17 states and Union Territories, with the exercise aimed at facilitating voter registration and including eligible electors who may have been left out during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR).

The order was issued on Thursday, October 15, amid continuing political controversy over the SIR process and concerns raised by opposition parties regarding the exclusion of names from electoral rolls.

Under the announced schedule, January 1, 2027, will be the qualifying date for the revision. The draft electoral rolls are scheduled to be published on November 12, while the final rolls are due on January 4, 2027. Uttar Pradesh and Punjab, two states included in the exercise, are scheduled to go to the polls by February 2027.

Which states and Union Territories are covered?

The Special Summary Revision will cover the following 17 states and Union Territories:

  • Andaman and Nicobar Islands
  • Assam
  • Bihar
  • Chhattisgarh
  • Goa
  • Gujarat
  • Kerala
  • Lakshadweep
  • Madhya Pradesh
  • Manipur
  • Puducherry
  • Punjab
  • Rajasthan
  • Tamil Nadu
  • Uttar Pradesh
  • Uttarakhand
  • West Bengal

The Election Commission’s order follows earlier instructions issued to state election officials on September 29 to undertake a special drive to enrol eligible voters who had been left out, along with young and first-time electors.

Why has the Election Commission ordered the revision?

The announcement comes amid protests and political disagreements over the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. Opposition parties have raised concerns about names being excluded during the exercise.

Another point of contention has been an additional declaration required from applicants submitting Form 6 for voter enrolment while the SIR was underway. The declaration required applicants to map their parents to the last SIR, which was conducted around 20 years ago.

The Election Commission had clarified on October 7 that the additional declaration applied only in states and Union Territories where the SIR was being conducted. It said the regular forms prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, would apply outside the SIR period.

The latest SSR order refers to applications for inclusion through Form 6 but does not mention the additional declaration.

What happens in states not covered by the current schedule?

The Election Commission has said that the schedule for the Special Summary Revision will be announced later in states and Union Territories where the SIR is ongoing or has recently been completed.

These include Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Chandigarh, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu, Haryana, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, the National Capital Territory of Delhi, Odisha, Sikkim, Tripura and Telangana.

For Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh, where the SIR has not yet started, the schedule for electoral roll revision will be announced in due course, taking local weather conditions into account.

The Election Commission’s latest order sets out a separate timeline for the 17 states and Union Territories covered by the current SSR exercise, while leaving the schedules for the other regions to be announced later.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com