Thread by @LiveLawIndia

#Sabarimala: Five Judge Constitution Bench will deliver the Judgment in a 2006 PIL filed by Indian Young Lawyers Association challenging the centuries-old tradition of Sabrimala Temple banning entry of women of menstruating age inside the temple now

Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra And Justices RF Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra is going to pronounce the verdict after eight-day long marathon hearing

The Constitution Bench assembles
Four Opinions as "USUAL"

Sabarimala is a 4:1 verdict, with Justice Indu Malhotra dissenting.

Breaking: Justice Indu Malhotra, the lone woman member of the bench dissents with majority #sabarimala

CJI Starts reading Judgment
The dualistic approach against women degrades the status of women.

Women is not lesser or inferior to man
Patriarchy of religion cannot be permitted to trump over faith: CJI

Biological or physiological reasons cannot be accepted in freedom for faith :CJI

Religion is basically way of life however certain practices create incongruities.CJI #Sabarimala

CJI refers Shirur Matt Judgment [7 judges]
indiankanoon.org/doc/1430396/

Breaking: In view of Shirur Mutt, devotees of #Ayyappa do not constitute separate religious denomination: Supreme Court

Breaking: The right guaranteed under article 25 has nothing to do with gender or physiological factors: CJI

Breaking: The exclusionary practice given the backing of a legislation is not an integral part of religion: CJI for majority

The said rules are ultra vires the Constitution: SC

Breaking: SC Constitution Bench Allows Women' s Entry To #SABARIMAL temple By 4:1

There is no protection under Article 26 for Ayyappa devotees and therefore the rules will not apply insofar as #Sabarimala is concerned.: Justice Nariman

There was an submission stating that there should be adducing of evidence. In writ petitions there is nothing called evidence and affidavits constitute evidence.: Justice Nariman

Rules Disallowing women in #Sabarimala unconstitutional and violative of Article 21

Morality for the purpose of 25 and 26 is ephemeral in nature.
Fundamental Rights under PART III of Constitution is essential for transformation of a society: Nariman

Dignity of individual is an unwavering nature of fundamental rights: Nariman #Sabarimala

Anything destructive of individuality is anachronistic of Constitutionality
To treat women as lesser people blinks at the Constitution itself: Justice Nariman

Breaking: The fact that women have a physiological feature of menstruating has nothing to do with her right to pray: Justice Nariman
#Sabarimala

Women cannot keep #vratham is of the notion that they are meek and weak: Nariman

Ayyappans do not create a religious denomination: Nariman #Sabarimala

Breaking: Narasu Appa Mali is not a good law insofar as customs are concerned.
indiankanoon.org/doc/54613/ : Justice Nariman @gautambhatia88

Birthmarks and physiology are not the basis to deny constitutional entitlements.
To treat women as children of a lesser god is to blink at the constitution itself. Justice Chandrachud

We should proceed as if practice is essential to the religion but it should Constitution: Chandrachud

Issues of deep religious sentiments should not be ordinarily be interfered by the Court: Justice Indu malhotra in her dissenting opinion

#Sabarimala shrine and the deity is protected by Article 25 of Constitution of India : Justice Indu Malhotra

Court should not interfere unless if there is any aggrieved person from that section or religion: Indu Malhotra #Sabarimala

Correction: Justice Chnadrachud

Notion of rationality should not be seen in matters of religion: Indu Malhotra

If there are clear attributes that there exists a section with identifiable characteristics, they constitute religious denomination: Indu Malhotra

Worshipers of #Sabarimala have attributes of religious denomination or sect: Indu Malhotra

Temple gets funds from Devaswam Board not from CFI

Over