ਕੈਟੇਗਰੀ

ਤੁਹਾਡੀ ਰਾਇ



Voice of People
THE SUPREME COURT TO WIN OR ALWAYS TO LOSE BEFORE INTOLERANTS IN INDIA
THE SUPREME COURT TO WIN OR ALWAYS TO LOSE BEFORE INTOLERANTS IN INDIA
Page Visitors: 98

THE SUPREME COURT TO WIN OR ALWAYS TO LOSE BEFORE INTOLERANTS IN INDIA
https://www.facebook.com/balbir.singh.355/posts/1876735499028211

Analysis By: Balbir Singh Sooch-Sikh Vichar Manch

Sabrimala Temple Case.jpg
SC bulldozes gender barrier at Sabrimala temple, opens its gate for women devotees of all age group: Amit Anand Choudhary1 TNN 1 Updated: September 28, 2018, 18:53 IST
1.    
“A serious apprehension and the flaw in the constitution of India are always witnessed in practice in India:
Though the equality before law upheld as the basic spirit of the Indian constitution, but was it not stand extremely diluted in favour of powerful and influential in all respects and proved ineffective for poor, weak and hapless as, ‘Any child born to Indian parents should automatically have equality of status conferred on him or her by the Constitution. Article 14 as drafted denies him this status. The onus of claiming equality is placed on his shoulders.  How many people in India can take the trouble of going through this ordeal?..It means, both Articles 14 and 17 of the Indian Constitution have no meaning but were intended only for external propaganda”. Balbir Singh Sooch as observed.

2.    
“The “patriarchal” belief is that a man’s dominant status in the society makes him capable of austerity-restriction, hardship to woman. Lawyer Indira Jaising, who appeared for the petitioners, the Indian Young Lawyers Association, argued the temple rules on entry of women were discriminatory as they were based on sex alone. Citing the Constitution, she contended that any custom or practice which violates its Articles 14 and 15 pertaining to equality should be struck down”. .HT
3.    
“The unchallenged 67-year reign of a Bombay High Court judgment that personal law, religious customs, usages and beliefs are outside the ambit of fundamental rights of equality, life and dignity came to an end on Friday, September 28, 2018; UPDATED: SEPTEMBER 29, 2018 01:37 IST” THE HINDU.
4.    
A pilgrimage to Sabarimala situated in Western Ghats mountain ranges is unique in many ways. A devotee has to observe 41 days’ fast abstaining from all worldly pleasures followed by a rigorous trek through forests. Lord Ayyappa’s favourite disciple is a Muslim saint ‘Vavar Swami’ and devotees will have to worship first at his mosque before proceeding to the hilltop.
5.    
The temple management had earlier told the apex court that the ban on entry of women of the particular age was because they cannot maintain “purity” on account of menstruation.
6.    
“Exclusionary-  ‘addressing the issue of social exclusion’ practise given support by a subordinate legislation is neither essential nor integral part of religion. We hold rule... is ultra vires,”Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra who headed a five-judge constitution bench , said. The bench also comprises justices Rohinton Fali Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Ind
7.    
But after hearing the board and other parties, the bench indicated that the practice appeared to be based on the “patriarchal” belief that a man’s dominant status in the society makes him capable of austerity-restriction, hardship to woman”.HT
8.    
“The main opinion shared by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra and Justice A.M. Khanwilkar said, "One side we pray to goddesses; on the other, women of a certain age are considered 'impure'. This dualistic approach is nothing but patriarchy practised in religion. The ban 'exacts' more purity from women than men''.
9.    
It said that exclusion on grounds of biological and physiological features like menstruation was unconstitutional. It amounted to discrimination based on a biological factor exclusive to gender. It was violative of the right to equality and dignity of women.
10.
Prohibition is a form of untouchability: Justice Chandrachud In a separate, but concurring opinion, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud held that to treat women as the children of a lesser God was to blink at the Constitution,. The prohibition was a form of untouchability”
11.
Chief Justice Misra wrote that relation with the Creator was a transcending one. Physiological and biological barriers created by rigid social dogma had no place. The CJI and Justice Khanwilkar held that the Sabarimala prohibition was a prejudice against women, which was zealously propagated and was not an essential part of religion.
12. The majority view declared Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act of 1965, which mandates the prohibition in Sabarimala temple, as ultra vires the Constitution.
13.
The CJI and Justice Khanwilkar held that the Rule violated the fundamental right of a Hindu woman to offer worship at a place of her choice. Right to worship is equally available to men and women.
14. Justice Indu Malhotra, the lone woman judge on the Constitution Bench, dissented from the majority opinion. She held that the determination of what constituted an essential practice in a religion should not be decided by judges on the basis of their personal viewpoints. She held that essentiality of a religious practice or custom had to be decided within the religion. It was a matter of personal faith. India was a land of diverse faiths. Constitutional morality in a pluralistic society gave freedom to practice even irrational or illogical customs and usages.
15.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, for the Travancore Devaswom Board, argued that Sabarimala did not practice exclusion. People from all walks of life and from every creed, caste and religion entered and offered their prayers in the temple. He submitted that it was also physiologically impossible for women to observe the 41-day penance before the pilgrimage. He reiterated that the restriction found its source in the celibate status of the Sabarimala deity and not in patriarchy.
16.
However, the Kerala government reaffirmed its complete support for lifting the prohibition. Activists hail judgment:
17.
Chhavi Methi, a rights activist, welcomed the judgment, but said its acceptance remained to be seen. “I am doubtful the temple authorities would take it in the right spirit. Women would accept it but its implementation might pose a problem,” she said.
18.
Another women rights activist Vani Subramaniam too expressed concern over the community’s reaction to it.“Question remains to be seen how it is accepted in the community and by the people at the ground level,” she said.
19. Mariam Dhawale, general secretary of the The All India Democratic Women’s Association, called it another step that would help in bringing equality. “We welcome the judgement. Women have a constitutional right to be able to visit the temple and whoever wishes must be allowed to visit it,” she said.
20.
Jaimala says her faith and belief has come true: Karnataka Women and Child Development Minister Jaimala termed the verdict historic. "Women have got justice today. There is no happier moment in my life other than this. I thank the women community, Supreme Court judges and God today...I also thank Ambedkar who wrote our Constitution.”
21.
The actress-turned-politician created a storm some years ago by claiming that she had in her prime youth entered the sanctum sanctorum of the temple and touched the idol of the presiding deity. Responding to a question on the earlier incident, she said, “That day also I had faith and belief in God and our judiciary, and that faith and belief has come true today.” Asked about the opposing voices to the judgement, she said “God will protect.” THE HINDU
22.
“The Supreme Court of India and more specifically the Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, through three judgments, pronounced in last few weeks, has in 'letter and spirit of law' upheld the basic spirit of the Indian constitution: equality before law, ignoring other moralities dictated by different 'sects' and sections of the society.
23.
Article 15 of the constitution reads: “the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them". And, it also makes the State responsible for checking and eliminating any such discrimination perpetuated by any section of the society.
24.
The Supreme Court in three cases pertaining to Section 377 of the Indian penal code (IPC), Section 497 of IPC and now in the Sabarimala temple entry case brought to an end forms of discrimination that was dictated by certain 'religious and societal morality' that did not weaned off with the passage of time.
25.
On Friday, September 28, 2018, Chief Justice Misra held that the age-based restriction on entry of women in Kerala’s Sabarimala temple cannot be justified as an essential part of the religion. The constitutional bench which had five judges, with one judge dissenting, held that any exception placed on women because of biological differences violates the Constitution.
26.
The court ruled, “The time when wives were invisible to the law, and lived in the shadows of their husbands, has long since gone by. A legislation that perpetuates such stereotypes in relationships, and institutionalises discrimination is a clear violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution.
27.
Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, in judgment written for himself and Justice AM Khanwilkar held, “The beauty of the Indian Constitution is that it includes ‘I’ ‘you’ and ‘we’. Such a magnificent, compassionate and monumental document embodies emphatic inclusiveness which has been further nurtured by judicial sensitivity when it has developed the concept of golden triangle of fundamental rights. If we have to apply the parameters of a fundamental right, it is an expression of judicial sensibility which further enhances the beauty of the Constitution as conceived of.
28.
??? In such a situation, the essentiality of the rights of women gets the real requisite space in the living room of individual dignity rather than the space in an annexe to the main building”. FIRST POST
29.
Whether such women… “Who have the space in an annexe to the main building” have any remedy except ‘Any child born to Indian parents should automatically have equality of status conferred on him or her by the Constitution. Article 14 as drafted denies him this status. The onus of claiming equality is placed on his shoulders.  How many people in India can take the trouble of going through this ordeal?It means, both Articles 14 and 17 of the Indian Constitution have no meaning but were intended only for external propaganda?
30.
“In a landmark judgment Friday, September 28, 2018 the Supreme Court allowed women irrespective of their age, to enter Kerala’s  Sabarimala temple. A five-member constitution bench comprising Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, Justices Rohinton Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud, and Indu Malhotra, in a 4-1 majority, struck down provisions of The Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 that banned women between the age of 10 and 50 from the temple. The practice had been in place for centuries. Justice Malhotra, the lone woman on the bench, had a dissenting view. Full text: Supreme Court Sabarimala temple verdict”: https://indianexpress.com/article/india/full-text-supreme-court-sabarimala-temple-judgment-5378255/
31.
Week of historic verdicts by Supreme Court: Impact 2019? NDTV: It has been a week of historical verdicts by the Supreme Court. Three verdicts, however, have immense implications on the future of Indian polity, especially leading up to general elections 2019. Tonight on the show, how the verdicts from Ayodhya to Aadhaar will shape the Road to 2019.
 
https://www.facebook.com/ndtv/videos/1915899945381169/?notif_id=1538150448789471&notif_t=live_video_explicit
32.
“A serious apprehension and the flaw in the constitution of India are always witnessed in practice in India: Though the equality before law upheld as the basic spirit of the Indian constitution, but was it not stand extremely diluted in favour of powerful and influential in all respects and proved ineffective for poor, weak and hapless as, ‘Any child born to Indian parents should automatically have equality of status conferred on him or her by the Constitution. Article 14 as drafted denies him this status. The onus of claiming equality is placed on his shoulders.  How many people in India can take the trouble of going through this ordeal?..It means, both Articles 14 and 17 of the Indian Constitution have no meaning but were intended only for external propaganda. http://www.sikhvicharmanch.com/B1.htm
33.
THE SUPREME COURT TO WIN OR ALWAYS TO LOSE BEFORE INTOLERANTS IN INDIA: As already observed under:
(i)              
“THE SUPREME COURT SEEMS TO BE WINNING…
https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/cartoon/cartoonscape-september-28-2018/article25061183.ece?homepage=true

(ii)            The lower court order upheld….The lower court order overruled …. THE SUPREME COURT SEEMS TIRED READING AND GLANCING OWN ORDERS…. To give detail is not possible, but it all is a matter of record.
(iii)         
The Indian administration-executive is wise enough does not speak as to how lower courts including higher courts pass orders?
(iv)          The Indian administration-executive just silently smile and ignore all this.
(v)            
Balbir Singh Sooch needs not to tell stories hesitatingly…like this, but straightway come to the point and about the sanctity of such SC orders, ‘The lower court order upheld….The lower court order overruled ….’
(vi)         
I told you, ‘THE SUPREME COURT SEEMS TIRED READING AND GLANCING OWN ORDERS’ in India
(vii)       
Be more specific... Don’t beat about/around the bush; ‘To speak vaguely or euphemistically so as to avoid talking directly about an unpleasant or sensitive topic’.
(viii)       
No Rule of Law as Law Lost Aadhaar-Basis in India: Thanks Balbir Singh Sooch”
https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/cartoon/cartoonscape-september-28-2018/article25061183.ece?homepage=truehttp://www.thekhalsa.org/frame.php?path=356&article=180
34.  
ANYTHING TO DECLARE, SIR!
http://www.thekhalsa.org/frame.php?path=356&article=18002
https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/cartoon/cartoonscape-september-28-2018/article25061183.ece?homepage=true
https://vuukle.com/user/by/balbir-singh/e0759eaf-f3b5-42f1-aff7-a938332d7c9
THE SUPREME COURT TO WIN OR ALWAYS TO LOSE BEFORE INTOLERANTS IN INDIA

https://vuukle.com/user/by/Balbir-Singh/e0759eaf-f3b5-42f1-aff7-a938332d7c96

SC bulldozes gender barrier at Sabrimala temple, opens its gate for women devotees of all age group: Amit Anand Choudhary1 TNN 1 Updated: September 28, 2018, 18:53 IST
https://www.facebook.com/balbir.singh.355/posts/1876735499028211

 

 

©2012 & Designed by: Real Virtual Technologies
Disclaimer: thekhalsa.org does not necessarily endorse the views and opinions voiced in the news / articles / audios / videos or any other contents published on www.thekhalsa.org and cannot be held responsible for their views.