1. The Bench has assembled. The #Sabarimala hearing resumes.
3. Mr. Biju wishes to place before the Court certain extracts from Commonwealth debates which are of relevance to the issue at hand. #Sabarimala
4. Mr. Biju submits that the restriction in question has got nothing to do with menstruation, but with the celibate character of the Deity. #Sabarimala
5. Mr. Biju submits that in examining the nature of a certain practice, its religious basis must be understood. #Sabarimala
6. Mr. Biju cites Swami Vivekananda on the practice of Naishtika Brahmacharya and the restrictions that apply to the said practice. #Sabarimala
7. Mr. Biju reads out extracts from the Petition to show that the Petition is based on news reports authored by Barkha Dutt and a few journalists. No where does the Petition evidence personal knowledge of the practice of the Temple or its basis. #Sabarimala
8. Mr. Biju is drawing attention to Paragraph 4 of first affidavit filed by State Government where the Govt has clearly pleaded ignorance of the basis of practice. Mr. Biju therefore submits that in light of this statement, the Govt is in no position to take an informed position
9. Mr. Biju further submits that the constant flip flop of the State Government's position renders its affidavits unreliable. #Sabarimala
10. Mr. Biju highlights the unique nature of the #Sabarimala Temple by pointing out the Vavar Dargah and another tribal deity before visiting the #Sabarimala Temple.
11. Mr. Biju is placing before the court statistics relating to the number of women under the age of 10 and over the age of 50 who have visited the #Sabarimala Temple.
12. Mr. Biju submits that the #Sabarimala Temple receives INR 300 crores from devotees' contributions and only INR 8 lakhs from the State and yet the Petitioner wants the Temple to be treated as a State institution.
13. Mr. Biju concludes his submissions. Now Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan begins for an intervenor. #Sabarimala
14. Mr. Sankaranarayanan submits that the first question that needs to be addressed is whether the #Sabarimala Temple attracts the definition of public place of worship under the 1965 Act.
15. Mr. Sankaranarayanan submits that a narrow definition of religious denomination may not do justice to the unique nature and history of the #Sabarimala Temple.
16. Mr. Sankaranarayanan further submits that the 1965 Rules are codification of existing practices. #Sabarimala
17. Mr. Sankaranarayanan submits that allowing the Petition would result in a can of worms across the board across all faiths. #Sabarimala
18. Mr. Sankaranarayanan submits that even the Constitution does not take a categorical position that there can be no exclusion on any basis with respect to entry into religious places of worship. #Sabarimala
19. Justice Nariman asks why Article 17 does not apply to the practice at the #Sabarimala Temple. Mr. Sankaranarayanan submits that if a woman were to be excluded on the basis of caste, that's the only basis for applying Article 17, which doesn't apply to the #Sabarimala Temple.
20. Mr. Sankaranarayanan further terms as "despicable" the use of the word chauvinism in the context of Kerala by the Petitioner in its petition given the matrilineal and matriarchal nature of the Kerala society. #Sabarimala
21. Mr. Sankaranarayanan submits that the status of a religious denomination is indeed applicable to the #Sabarimala Temple. He says that he entirely accepts and adopts Mr. @jsaideepak’s arguments in this regard.
22. Mr. Sankaranarayanan submits that devotees who put faith in the #Sabarimala Temple and observes its practices would qualify as a religious denomination for the purposes of Article 26.
23. The Bench enquires whether the status of a religious denomination can still be maintained with respect to the #Sabarimala Temple regardless of the religious background of the devotees.
24. Mr. Sankaranarayanan submits that it is indeed possible to bestow that Status to Ayyappa Devotees in view of the fact that the devotees are required to observe the practices related to the Temple. #Sabarimala
25. Mr. Sankaranarayanan then points out Rule 3 encompasses of a host of practices and to the Temples of Kerala. Therefore, striking down Rule 3(b) would affect other sub-Rules and other Temples in Kerala.
26. Mr. Sankaranarayanan has concluded his submissions. Hearing to continue tomorrow. #Sabarimala
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
