A dissenting view

A dissenting view

Article:

1. Writer is a former Judge of SC, and has discussed about the implication Sabarimala verdict.

Important Analysis:

2. In Indian Young Lawyers Association vs. State of Kerala, the Supreme Court by a 4-1 majority held the prohibition of entry of women in Sabarimala temple of menstruating age is illegal and unconstitutional.
3. In Author’s view, the Supreme Court Judgement will pave the way for litigation for other temple or places as well.
4. However, in the opinion of writer, the majority judgement was incorrect because

• Right to equality in Article 14 had to be harmonized with the right of people under Article 25 to follow their own religious practices.
• Sabarimala devotees have constitutionally protected denominational rights, that they are entitled to prevent the entry of women.
• Constitution of India assure every religious denomination to manage its own affairs (Article 26).
• Court cannot impose its morality or rationality with respect to the form of worship of a deity
• Essentiality of a religious practice or custom had to be decided within the contours of that religion. Such as women of menstruating age would not be able to observe the 41-day period of abstinence before making a pilgrimage.
• Since India is a land of diverse faith, ban was a matter of personal faith.
• Constitutional Morality in a diverse society gave freedom to practice even illogical custom.
• In a secular polity, issues which are matters of deep religious faith and sentiment must not ordinarily be interfered with by courts.
• Writer has also noticed there are thousands of temples, mosques, and Gurdwaras in India, many with their own rituals and practices.