Parasaran saya the right of State to make laws to throw open Hindu Temples to all classes and sections of Hindus does not include women within it scope.
"Why are women exlcuded" asks CJI Dipak Misra and Rohinton Nariman.
#Sabarimala: Parasaran says Article 25(2)(b) has to be interpreted as a special provision for backward classes who were discrimimated against and not allowed entry into temples.
#Sabarimala: A rule which excludes a section is not contemplated by Article 25(2)(b). A.25(2)(b) enables State to make laws. Hence, that Article might not be relevant in this context, Justice DY Chandrachud.
#Sabarimala: "Mr. Parasaran, Is Article 25(2)(b) tied to the core of Article 17, asks Nariman J.
"Yes", Parasaran.
If so what is the need for A.17? Nariman J.
#Sabarimala: To make things absolutely clear, says Parasaran.
Correction: "If so what is the need for Article 25(2)(b)", Nariman J.
#Sabarimala: Parasaran says Article 25(2)(b) is to address caste discrimination because the Article applies only to Hindus..If it was meant to apply to women also then it should have been applicable to all religions since discrimination against women are there in other religions
#Sabarimala: K Parasaran concludes submissions, Amicus Curiae Raju Ramachandran and Sr. Adv. Indira Jaising heap praise on the veteran Senior.
"He promised me he won't say a word against women and he kept his word", says Jaising.
#Sabarimala: Hearing concludes for the day, next to argue will be Sr. Adv. V Giri for Tanthri.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh