People For Dharma Profile picture
Jul 18, 2018 36 tweets 11 min read Twitter logo Read on Twitter
#Sabarimalahearing 1. Mr. R.P.Gupta, counsel for Indian Young Lawyers Association (the Petitioner), has resumed arguments. He again walked through the Order dated October 13,2017 wherein reference was made to the Constitution Bench
2. Mr. R.P.Gupta reiterates his position that #Sabarimala Temple has Buddhist origins. The Bench questions the relevance and authencity of the submissions in this regard.
3. Mr. R.P.Gupta is walking the Court through the Provisions of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act to make the case that the #Sabarimala Temple is part of State under the Constitution
4. Mr. R.P.Gupta is dilating on the requirements of "religious denomination" under Article 26 and their rights under the said Article #Sabarimala
5. Mr. R.P. Gupta contends that the oath of celibacy which is observed for 41 days by devotees visiting #Sabarimala is not an essential aspect of the tradition of the Temple.
6. Mr. R.P. Gupta contends that since the #Sabarimala Temple falls under the Travancore Devaswom Board, which also administers other Temples, the #Sabarimala Temple cannot claim to be of a separate religious denomination.
7. State funding of the #Sabarimala Temple makes it part of the State and therefore there can't be any discrimination based on gender, submits Mr. R.P.Gupta.
8. Mr. R.P.Gupta submits that the bar on entry of women into the #Sabarimala Temple was originally based on the difficulties faced by women in visiting the Temple, which is no more the case.
9. Mr R.P.Gupta submits that while women are allowed into the Chengannur Temple at the base of #Sabarimala mountain near the Pampa River, they are not allowed into the #Sabarimala Temple.
10. Mr R.P.Gupta submits that the Shirur Mutt decision protects only the essential aspect of a faith. #Sabarimala
11. Mr R.P.Gupta submits religious practices which are based on superstition do not enjoy protection under Article 26. #sabarimala
12. Practices which are not essential part of the faith and which are against constitutional morality cannot be protected under the garb of Article 26, submits Mr. R.P.Gupta. #Sabarimala
13. Mr. R.P. Gupta is now dealing with the judgement of the Supreme Court in Venkataramana Devaru v State of Mysuru which deals with the interplay between Articles 25 & 26. #Sabarimala
14. Mr. R.P.Gupta is drawing the attention of the administration of the #Sabarimala Temple under the Travancore Devaswom Board and the legislation which governs it.
15. Hearing to continue post lunch
16. Mr. R.P.Gupta has concluded his submissions. Ms. Indira Jaising has commenced submissions in support of the Petitioner's position. #Sabarimala
17. Ms. Jaising submits that all Temple Entry legislations have been enacted pursuant to Article 17, which applies to institutions of religious denominations as well. #Sabarimala
18. Ms. Jaising is now reading out Section 3 of Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 #Sabarimala
19. Ms. Jaising submits that what is good law for Harijans under Article 17 is good for women. #Sabarimala
20. Ms. Jaising submits that bar in #Sabarimala on entry of women between the ages of 10 & 50 is based on discrimination attributable to the process of menstruation
21. Ms. Jaising is appearing for an intervenor supporting the position of the Petitioner. #Sabarimala
22. Justice Chandrachud points out that the history of Article 17 shows that it was never meant to address women-orinted issues or discrimination. Instead Mr. Chandrachud draws attention to Article 25(2)(b). #Sabarimala
23. Ms. Jaising submits that untouchability applies to all forms of social boycott regardless of its basis. #Sabarimala
24. Justice Chandrachud is now referring to the definition of place under Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 #Sabarimala
25. Justice Chandrachud is examining whether the Rules are contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Constitution. #Sabarimala
26. Justice Nariman weighs in to point out that rights under Article 26 are subservient to Article 25(2)(b) as held by the Supreme Court in Venkataramana Devaru judgment.
27. Ms. Jaising draws attention to the preamble of the Constitution to refer to the right of worship to make the point that it is the right of every individual regardless of gender. #Sabarimala
28. Ms. Jaising submits that whether or not the #Sabarimala Temple enjoys denominational rights under Article 26 is irrelevant to the issue at hand in view of Article 25(2)(b).
29. Ms. Jaising has concluded her submissions. The Amicus Curiae, Mr. Raju Ramachandran, has now commenced his submissions. #Sabarimala
30. Mr. Ramachandran submits that the Kerala High Court has not given a finding in its judgement that the #Sabarimala Temple enjoys the status of a religious denomination under Article 26
31. Mr. Ramachandran submits that Article 25(2)(b) controls both Articles 25(1) and 26. He relies on the judgement in Venkataramana Devaru to support this position.
32. Mr. Ramachandran submits that Section 3 of Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Act is a mirror image of Articles 25 & 26. #Sabarimala
33. Mr. Ramachandran submits that Section 4 of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Act itself renders the impugned notification of Rules ultra vires the Act #Sabarimala
34. Justices Chandrachud and Nariman question the nexus between age of the women and menstruation. #Sabarimala
35. Hearing done for today. Will continue tomorrow #Sabarimala
36. The Counsel for the State Government of Kerala, Mr. Joydeep Gupta, informed the Court during the hearing that the State Govt has gone back to its 2015 position - it supports entry of women of all ages into the #Sabarimala Temple.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with People For Dharma

People For Dharma Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @People4Dharma

Aug 1, 2018
1. The Bench has assembled and hearing begins in the #Sabarimala Petition.
2. Mr. Ramamoorthy, Amicus Curiae for the Respondents, commences his submissions. #Sabarimala
3. Mr. Ramamoorthy submits that today through the Petition the very existence and origins of Lord Ayyappa have been questioned. #Sabarimala
Read 73 tweets
Jul 31, 2018
1. The Bench has assembled. The #Sabarimala hearing resumes.
2. Mr. V. K. Biju appears for @RahulEaswar an intervenor supporting the Temple. #Sabarimala
3. Mr. Biju wishes to place before the Court certain extracts from Commonwealth debates which are of relevance to the issue at hand. #Sabarimala
Read 26 tweets
Jul 26, 2018
1. #Sabarimala hearings have commenced. Mr. K. Radhakrishnan appears for Respondent No. 19, the Pandalam Royal family, the family of Lord Ayyappa
2. Mr. Radhakrishnan is analysing Article 25 and submits that the provision has no equal anywhere in the world. #Sabarimala
3. Mr. Radhakrishnan submits that women of child bearing age restrain themselves from entering the Temple, they are giving effect to and respecting the will of the Deity. #Sabarimala
Read 134 tweets
Jul 25, 2018
1. Arguments in the #Sabarimala Petition resume. Mr. Parasaran now argues for the Nair Service Society.
2. Mr. Parasaran submits that Kerala is an educated society
3. Mr. Parasaran submits that 96% of the women in Kerala are educated. They are independent. It is a matrilineal society. Therefore to assume that the practice of the #Sabarimala Temple is based on patriarchy is fundamentally incorrect
Read 66 tweets
Jul 24, 2018
1. #Sabarimala hearings commence. Dr. Singhvi submits on behalf of the Travancore Devaswom Board that he is limiting the scope of his submissions to only the Sabarimala Ayyappa Temple.
2. Dr. Singhvi is placing before the Court the history of the #Sabarimala Temple and the requirements of the vow to be observed for 41 days prior to visiting the Temple.
3. Dr. Singhvi submits that every Ayyappa devotee who observes the vow is himself treated as a Swami, which epifies the line Tat Tvam Asi
Read 60 tweets
Jul 19, 2018
#Sabarimalahearing 1. Mr. Raju Ramachandran has resumed his submissions as the Amicus Curiae in support of the Petitioner
2. Mr. Ramachandran submits that while Article 17 was originally intended to tackle untouchability emanating from caste, nothing stops the Court from expansively interpreting it just as Article 21 has been interpreted over the years. #Sabarimala
3. Mr Ramachandran submits that if the basis for exclusion under traditional untouchability is defilement or pollution of the premises, the same logic applies to untouchability on account of defilement caused by menarche. #Sabarimala
Read 32 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!


0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy


3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!