The judicial attitude reflected through this verdict has reviewed the status of the vertical relationship between the State and its subjects. The Sabarimala judgment is a watershed moment in the history of affirmative action as it has greased the wheels of social integration and breathed life into feminist jurisprudence. The contemporary approach towards interpretation of the Constitution is that of the ‘living tree’, with judges shouldering the responsibility of updating the Constitution so that it keeps pace with changing times. The same ought not to be limited solely to the ‘legislative intent’ argument and at the same time, must not transgress the core ideals of constitutional value. The changing circumstances of the socio-political fabric of a modern, democratic and secular nation require an intellectually liberal approach towards constitutional interpretation. Transformative nature of the Constitution The provision restricting entry of women in the state legislation was struck down and deemed unconstitutional. In 2018, a Constitution Bench allowed the entry of women irrespective of age into the Temple on the grounds that the ban violated the fundamental right of freedom of religion as per Article 25 of the Constitution. The petition stated that the ban imposed (restricting entry of women) be removed as it was ultra vires (beyond the powers) the Constitution. This legislation was enacted by the state government to regulate the entry of different sections of Hindus into places of public worship. The provision restricting entry of women in the state legislation was struck down and deemed unconstitutional.Ī subsequent petition was filed in public interest in 2006 contesting the constitutional validity of Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules, 1965 (that restrict the entry of women into the Temple). In 2018, a Constitution Bench allowed the entry of women irrespective of age into the Sabarimala Temple on the grounds that the ban violated the fundamental right of freedom of religion as per Article 25 of the Constitution. The High Court of Kerala restricted their entry premised on the reason that the said exclusion was constitutional and justified as it was a long-standing custom prevailing since time immemorial by way of its order in S. In 1990, a restriction on the entry of women of menstruating age (between 10 and 50 years) into the Temple was sought. The Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple is a prominent temple in Kerala dedicated to Lord Ayyappa. The Sabarimala verdict, pronounced over a year ago, is now subject to a batch of several voluminous review petitions and has been referred to a seven-judge Constitution Bench by the Supreme Court by way of a recent decision in Kantaru Rajeevaru vs. State of Kerala (popularly known as the Sabarimala case) is one such contentious case, adorned with the development of progressive feminist jurisprudence. The constitutional trinity of ‘liberty’, ‘equality’ and ‘dignity’ runs deeper than it appears it is an unwritten moral code that transcends the theoretical restrictions of codified law. When these Articles are juxtaposed, the prolonged debate that ensues contemplating the tenets of constitutional integrity overwhelms us. In the Indian context, such legal issues entail a complex interplay between Articles 14, 25 and 26 of the Constitution. However, the fact that judges of constitutional courts adjudicate on matters of faith has always been a bone of contention in a society as intensely drawn to religious beliefs as India. The modern, democratic state today has an institutionalised justice system wherein courts uphold the rule of law and sometimes fill the policy lacunae involuntarily left unaddressed by the legislature or are creatures born out of vicissitudes. This litigation has been a quest for judicial intervention to restrict dogmatic practices in the alleged pursuit of religion. Denying women entry into places of public worship solely on the basis of their physiological state is not the mandate of the Indian Constitution and transgresses the spirit of ‘right to equality’ under Article 14, says AYESHA JAMAL The petitioners had asserted that regressive interpretation of scriptures could not be used for prolonging discriminatory practices based on the biological state of a person. The Sabarimala judgment greased the wheels of social integration and breathed life into feminist jurisprudence.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |