Supreme Court had today passed an important verdict allowing women of all ages to enter Sabarimala. While this is being celebrated as a major victory for women, the interesting point is that the in the five-judge bench of the Supreme Court that ruled today, the only dissenting voice was from a woman. Justice Indu Malhotra
disagreed with her peers and you should know what she has to say about it.
“The practice of age restriction on women entry to Sabarimala temple can’t be treated as an essential religious practice,” said the court in a majority four-one judgment, ending a ban on the entry of women between 10 and 50 years. Justice Indu Malhotra, however, held the view that issues which have deep religious connotation should not be tinkered with.
She said it is necessary to maintain the secular atmosphere in the country. ” It is not for court to interfere in religious practices even if it appears discriminatory. Notions of rationality cannot be brought into matters of religion,” she said. Malhotra felt court cannot interfere unless it is a social evil like Sati. She added that the issue in this case not limited to Sabarimala only. “It will have far-reaching implications for other places of worships” she said.
Reacting to the dissenting view, senior lawyer Indira Jaising said, “While I disagree with Justice Indu Malhotra, she has an opinion which must be read, I am sad though that a dissent in Sabarimala came from a woman judge.”
Post Your Comments