People For Dharma Profile picture
Jul 19, 2018 32 tweets 10 min read Twitter logo Read on Twitter
#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
4. If exclusion is based on the concept of pollution, the effect is the same as under Article 17, submits Mr. Ramachandran #Sabarimala
5. If the woman cannot undertake the penance of 41 days on account of menarche, then the exclusion is based on considerations of impurity associated with menstruation. #Sabarimala
6. Justice Nariman responds that if that were to be the case, would even menstratuating Brahmin women be entitled to protection under Article 17 on grounds of untouchability? Was that the intention of Article 17 and the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955?#Sabarimala
7. Mr. Ramachandran draws attention to the Statement of objects and reasons of the Protection of Civil Rights Act which says that it is difficult to define untouchability #Sabarimala
8. Justice Chandrachud weighs in to observe that the Protection of Civil Rights Act is limited to addressing untouchability against scheduled castes. #Sabarimala
9. Justice Nariman points out that the definition of place of worship under the Protection of Civil Rights Act is applicable to all faiths #Sabarimala
10. Justice Nariman observes that perhaps caste afflicts all faiths in the sub-continent, including his own community the Parsis where there is a distinction between Priestly and non-Priestly castes which wasn't the case in the "home country" of Parsis. #Sabarimala
11. Mr. Raju Ramachandran has concluded his submissions. #Sabarimala
12. Senior Advocate Mr. Surendranath has begun submissions on behalf of an impleader who supports the Petitioner. Mr. Surendranath challenges Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Act, 1965. #Sabarimala
13. Justice Indu Malhotra asks Mr. Surendranath what his position on Temples which keep men out. Justice Malhotra cites the Attukal Bhagavathy Temple in Kerala. #Sabarimala
14. Mr. Surendranath responds that keeping men out of Temples too would amount to discrimination against men and should not be permitted. #Sabarimala
15. Mr. Surendranath concludes his submissions. #Sabarimala
16. Counsel Mr. Wills Mathews submits on behalf of an intervenor who supports the Petitioner, that the practice of the #Sabarimala Temple is a consequence of degeneration of Buddhism in Kerala. He concludes his submissions.
17. Senior Advocate Mr. Jaideep Gupta now submits on behalf of the State Government of Kerala. #Sabarimala
18. The CJI informs Mr. Jaideep Gupta that the current position being taken by the State Government will be final and it will not be allowed to change its position. #Sabarimala
19- Mr. Jaideep Gupta supports the position of the Petitioner and calls upon the Court to interpret Article 13(1) of the Constitution. #Sabarimala
20. Justice Nariman questions the applicability of Article 13(1), to which Mr. Jaideep Gupta submits that the custom of the Temple is law under Article 13(1). #Sabarimala
21. Mr Jaideep Gupta had concluded his submissions for State Government. Now Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi starts for the Travancore Devaswom Board. #Sabarimala
22. Dr. Singhvi submits that the entire religious practice of the #Sabarimala Temple has been distorted out of context to give the impression that the practice is barbaric and medieval.
23. Dr. Singhvi submits that only the #Sabarimala Ayyappa Temple observes this religious practice and this is based on a well founded belief which enjoys protection an essential part of the Temple under Article 26
24. Dr. Singhvi submits that practices based on menstruation are spread across cultures. That being said, the basis of the #Sabarimala Temple's practice is related to the celibate form of the Deity who is a Naishtika Brahmachari.
25. Justice Nariman asks what happens to a woman who stops menstratuating at the age of 45. Dr. Singhvi submits that age is not the issue, the principle behind the age is the issue. #Sabarimala
26. Justice Nariman notes that the notification could have been worded better to restrict entry of women who are of reproductive age instead of specifying an age bracket. Dr. Singhvi agrees that the notification could have been worded that way. #Sabarimala
27. Justice Indu Malhotra points out that restrictions based on menstruation are present in other religions as well. Justice Malhotra draws attention to the Old Testament. #Sabarimala
28. Dr. Singhvi points out that concepts of purity and impurity across cultures. Hindus leave footwear outside the Temple whereas Christians enter the church with the footwear on. #Sabarimala
29. Dr. Singhvi asks there are 1000s of Ayyappa Temples across the country where there is no restriction of any kind. Why do the Petitioners insist on visiting the #Sabarimala Temple? The CJI responds saying "because they believe in the Deity".
30. Dr. Singhvi responds that if they indeed believe in the Deity in #Sabarimala, they must respect the traditions of the Temple and observe its practices.
31. Shri K. Parasaran submits that devotees don't have the right to change the character of the Deity according to their convenience. If they indeed wish to worship, they must respect the traditions of the #Sabarimala Temple.
32. The CJI observes that a condition which is impossible to follow is untenable in law. Hearing concluded for today. Hearing to continue on Tuesday. #Sabarimala

• • •

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 18, 2018
#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
Read 36 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!