• Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Women's entry into Sabrimala: 7-judge SC bench to hear case again


CJI Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Khanwilkar, Indu Malhotra ruled in favour of sending the pleas to a larger bench, Justices Nariman and DY Chandrachud dissented.

The Supreme Court said the entry of women into places of worship is not limited to this temple, but many similar issues come into play as well, like the entry of Muslim women into mosques, Parsi women's entry to the tower of silence, female genital mutilation in the Dawoodi Bohra community, and others. The court said that these too may need to be referred to a higher bench. However, it is unclear if the SC has stayed its 2018 judgement.

Dissenting with the majority judgment, Justices RF Nariman and DY Chandrachud stuck to their earlier stand of quashing the custom which barred entry of women in 10-50 year age group. They said the issue of entry of women into mosques and could be considered by 7-judge bench.

"Endeavour of the petitioner is to revive the debate on what is an integral part of the religion. Both sections of the same religious group have the right to propagate practices of themselves. Faith perceived by one group is not the same as another," the CJI said.

The 65 petitions considered by the SC included 55 review petitions and four writ petitions.



`பழைய உத்தரவுக்குத் தடையில்லை; 7 நீதிபதிகள் அமர்வு விசாரணை!' - சபரிமலை விவகாரத்தில் உச்ச நீதிமன்றம்

ஆனால், நீதிபதிகள் சந்திரசூட் மற்றும் ஆர்.எஃப்.நாரிமன் ஆகியோர் இந்தக் கருத்தில் மாறுபட்டுள்ளனர். பெரும்பான்மை அடிப்படையில் சபரிமலை வழக்கு தொடர்பான மறுபரிசீலனை மனுக்களை உச்ச நீதிமன்றத்தின் 7 நீதிபதிகள் கொண்ட அமர்வு விசாரிக்கும். அதேநேரம், `சபரிமலைக்கு அனைத்து வயதுடைய பெண்களும் செல்லலாம் என்ற உத்தரவு தொடரும்' என்றும் நீதிபதிகள் குறிப்பிட்டுள்ளனர்.

மேலும் படிக்க

Janaki Jambunathan

Well-known member
Gender equality is upheld ! Referred to 7 judge bench to include similar issues of other religion - Common Civil Code via SC? Interested in this issue because the amicus in Sabarimala case is from our family!


Sabarimala Case: What The ‘People For Dharma’ Lawyer, Who Left The Supreme Court Spellbound, Had Argued

With the case back in the limelight, here’s what lawyer J Sai Deepak, who was in favour of preserving the ancient tradition in Sabarimala, had argued before the top court.

The lawyer, who appeared on behalf of a non-profit organisation called ‘People for Dharma’, one of the respondents in the case, made forceful arguments in the court which took the social media by storm.

Sai said that from the language of Article 25(1), it is evident that the rights of any worshipper under the said article are subject to the rights of religious institutions under Article 26 and, therefore, the former cannot claim to have better rights than the latter.

The lawyer submitted that while the petitioner, temple, and devotees have been asserting their rights under articles 25(1), 26, and 25(1) respectively, no one has pointed out that deity also has rights under articles 25 (1), 21, and 26.

Sai then referred to various judgements of the Privy Council and the Supreme Court of India establishing that a deity has juristic character and is thus a legal person and, therefore, can enjoy rights under articles 21, 25(1), and 26.

Sai submitted that the deity has rights to practise and preserve its Dharma, including its vow of Naishtika Brahmacharya under Article 25(1) and has the right to expect the privacy of that character under Article 21. He further stated that it is the vow of the deity that is implemented as the tradition of the Sabarimala Temple, which, therefore, brings into the picture rights under Article 26(b).

Read more at:



SC verdict on Sabarimala a silver lining for protestors and devotees, but a lot will depend on definition of constitutional morality


While the SC ruling should gladden devotees that the Supreme Court hasn't dismissed the batch of review petitions challenging the 2018 verdict, the absence of a stay order may embolden activists who had argued in favour of right to pray and equality

The majority judgment held that questions pertaining to essential religious practices should not remain restricted only to Hinduism and the entry of women in Sabarimala Temple but it should also examine issues as legality of female genital Mmutilation in Dawoodi Bohra community, entry of women in mosques, right of Parsi women who have married outside community to enter the Fire Temple

The majority judgment, in effect, may be interpreted as leaning towards taking a sympathetic view of argument propounded by Sabarimala protestors and Lord Ayyappa devotees who have pointed out that the earlier judgment violates the essential customs and practices at the temple that are based on the celibate nature of the deity

There is some confusion over the implications of the Sabarimala verdict pronounced by the Supreme Court on Thursday. In a 3:2 split judgment, the five-judge bench led by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Rohinton Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra have referred the issue of essential religious practices to a larger seven-judge bench.

While Justices Chandrachud and Nariman have dissented, the majority of CJI Gogoi, Justices Khanwilkar and Malhotra have opined that the issues pertaining to court’s role in determining the essential practices of a religion (not just Hinduism) and what establishes Constitutional morality should be decided by a larger bench.

Till the larger bench passes its verdict, the review petitions challenging the landmark 2018 Supreme Court judgment allowing women of all ages to visit Lord Ayyappa’s shrine in Sabarimala Temple, shall be kept pending.

Let the 7 Judges give any verdict as per the discussions and arguments. But before giving verdict, humbly request all of them to visit the shrine atop the hill, have a darshan and know its sanctity of the shrine and spiritual energy obtained after worshiping Lord Ayyappan.
Only non Hindus and atheist activists want to violate the temple rule to harm the unity of our country but not a true devotee. When men have to remove their shirt in Guruvayur, people have to follow dress code in Tirupati and mosques follow shariat law, why not Sabarimala have its own rule ? The activists should be dealt with iron hand to preserve the integrity of our country. The issue seems to be the conflict between FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT and RELIGIOUS FREEDOM., which one over rides the other