Varun Hari Prasad

  In the earlier part , I had provided a brief background to the case that was before the Court, the issues/questions that were placed before the Constitution Bench for its consideration, and the Judgement delivered by the Bench. In this part, let us explore those four questions and a few other aspects of the Judgement. Maintainability   Students of Law who are reading this blog might laugh at this point: how could maintainability be taken seriously in a PIL? Justice Indu Malhotra answers this question in her dissenting judgement:   (P. 7.2) “ The right to move the Supreme Court under Article 32 for violation of Fundamental Rights, must be based on a pleading that the Petitioners’ personal rights to worship in this Temple have been violated. The Petitioners do not claim to be devotees of the Sabarimala Temple where Lord Ayyappa is believed to have manifested himself as a ‘Naishtik Brahmachari’. To determine the validity of long-standing religious customs and usages ...

  On 28 September 2018, a five judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court lifted the ban on entry of women between the age group of 10 to 50 years into the Sabarimala Temple in a 4:1 majority decision. While many have welcomed and celebrated the verdict, it has given rise to spontaneous protests across Kerala, some of which are being led by women themselves. This judgement is very important as it will be quoted extensively in other cases that are already before the Court or in ones that would come up before the Court in future. Therefore, it is important to examine this question: Was the judgement progressive or did the judges go over-board? The Background The case started with a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed in the Supreme Court by a registered association called Indian Young Lawyers Association. In their petition they challenged the Constitutional validity of Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965, which restr...