- Hindi News
- National
- Supreme Court Hearing Update; Sabarimala Women Entry | Parsi Women Rights, Dawoodi Bohra Khatna
New Delhi9 minutes ago
- copy link
A bench of 9 judges of the Supreme Court will hear the case of discrimination against women in religious places for the second consecutive day today. In the 5-hour hearing on the first day on Tuesday, the Center supported the ban on women’s entry into the Sabarimala temple.
On behalf of the government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said – Not allowing women to enter the temple is not insulting them. He is worshiped in India. We object to the fact that the temple tradition was termed as ‘untouchability’ (untouchability or Article 17). Untouchability used to be based on caste, this case is different from that.
They He further said – Just like we cover our heads while going to a mosque, shrine or Gurudwara, Sabarimala also has a different tradition and it should be respected. This is an issue of autonomy of religious faith and sect, which is beyond the scope of the court.
On this, Justice Nagarathna, the only woman judge on the bench, said that if a woman is stopped from entering a temple because of her menstruation, then is she not ‘untouchability’? Untouchability has been completely abolished in the Constitution.
SC said- Discrimination cannot be ignored
- Government: The 2018 decision on women’s entry into the temple was taken wrongly. It is important to respect the traditions of all religions. Rules like covering the head are not a violation of rights.
- Justice Nagarathna: There can be a difference between social evil and religious practice. The rules of the Constitution should be the same for every day.
- Government: It is wrong to call the tradition of Sabarimala ‘untouchability’ (Article 17). Untouchability was caste based, this case is different from that.
- Justice Nagarathna: Is barring entry on the basis of menstruation not ‘untouchability’? The Constitution has completely abolished untouchability.
- Government: The court should not decide the modernity or scientificity of religious practices. Only those practices which are against public order, morality or health should be cancelled.
- Justice Nagarathna: There may be a difference between social evil and religious practice, but discrimination cannot be ignored.
More than 50 review petitions in Supreme Court
The case of discrimination against women at religious places has been in the courts of the country for the last 26 years. In 2018, a five-judge bench had lifted the ban on women’s entry into the temple by a 4:1 majority. After this several review petitions were filed.
The Constitution Bench of 9 judges of the Supreme Court will hear more than 50 petitions from April 7 to April 22. Review petitioners and those supporting them will be able to give arguments in the court from April 7 to April 9, while those opposing them will be able to give arguments from April 14 to April 16.
5 cases including Sabarimala on which SC will decide
Entry of women into Sabarimala temple: In 2018, the Supreme Court had given the right to visit the temple to women of all ages. Now the larger bench will decide whether this decision was right or not.
Circumcision of women in Dawoodi Bohra community: Advocate Sunita Tiwari filed a petition against it in 2017, saying the practice discriminates against women and is a serious violation of the rights of minor girls. The court will decide whether this practice is a violation of fundamental rights?
Entry of women into mosques: A woman named Yasmin Zubair Ahmed Peerzada filed a petition in the Supreme Court in 2016 for the entry of Muslim women into mosques. The court will decide whether Muslim women can be stopped from offering namaz in the mosque.
Entry of Parsi women into Agni Mandir: In 2012, Gulrukh M Gupta, a Parsi woman, filed a petition in the Bombay High Court against being barred from entering the Agni Temple after her marriage to a Hindu man. The Supreme Court will decide whether a Parsi woman can be barred from entering a temple if she marries a non-Parsi.
Questions of gender discrimination related to Muslim personal law: The Supreme Court will decide whether discrimination on the basis of gender in religious activities can be considered a violation of fundamental rights?
The Supreme Court decided 7 constitutional questions, which will be debated-
- What is the extent and scope of religious freedom under Article 25?
- How will the balance be struck between Article 25 (individual religious rights) and Article 26 (rights of religious denomination)?
- Are the rights under Article 26 superior to or subordinate to other fundamental rights?
- What is the definition of ‘ethics’ and ‘constitutional morality’ and what is the difference between them?
- What should be the limit of court interference or judicial review in religious practices?
- How should the meaning of ‘class of Hindus’ be understood in Article 25(2)(b)?
- Can a person, who is not a follower of that religion, challenge a religious tradition through a Public Interest Litigation (PIL)?
Women aged between 10 to 50 years are not allowed to enter Sabarimala, the whole matter is in 5 points.
- Earlier the entry of women between 10 to 50 years of age was banned in Sabarimala temple. The reason was considered to be periods and the celibacy fast of Lord Ayyappa. Controversy started regarding this rule.
- The matter arose in 1990 and later reached the Supreme Court. In 2006, the court issued a notice. In 2008, the case went to a bench of 3 judges.
- The hearing began in 2016. In 2017, the case was referred to a constitution bench of 5 judges. In 2018, women of all ages were allowed entry by a 4-1 majority.
- The court declared the ban unconstitutional. Bindu Kanakadurga and Bindu Ammini entered the temple amid protests.
- In 2019, the case was sent to a larger bench of 9 judges. Later, women’s entry cases related to other religions were also added to it.
Bindu Kanakadurga (45) and Bindu Ammini (46) entered the Sabarimala temple under police escort on January 2, 2019, following the Supreme Court order. She was the first women to do so. Both of them wore traditional black clothes to visit the temple.
What happened in the courts in 26 years, complete timeline…
Protests took place at the entry of 2 women in Sabarimala…Photos
Bindu Kanakadurga (45) and Bindu Ammini (46) entered Sabarimala temple for the first time.
When Bindu Kanakadurga and Bindu Ammini returned after having darshan of Lord Ayyappa, the temple was purified as soon as they left. Darshan was stopped in the temple for 1 hour.
There was strong opposition to women entering the temple. People demonstrated in Kochi on 2 January.
On January 3 also, protests took place at many places in Kerala. The police had dispersed the crowd.
Woman slapping a poster of Kerala CM Pinarayi Vijayan during a protest.
Know about Sabarimala temple…
Source link
[ad_3]
