Sabarimala Case Supreme Court: During the hearing of the case related to women’s entry and religious rights in Sabarimala temple, the Supreme Court reprimanded lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay for deviating from the issue. Justice Mahadevan said that the debate should focus only on the subject under consideration.
Hearing is going on in the Supreme Court on the matters related to women’s entry and religious traditions in various religious places including Sabarimala temple of Kerala. In this much-discussed case, where serious debates are going on on the entry of women, religious freedom and constitutional rights, a lawyer had to face the displeasure of the court for deviating from the issue during the hearing.
The Constitution Bench of nine judges said in clear words that the debate should be limited only to the issues under consideration. This comment of the court came at a time when Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay started making many broader social and ideological arguments beyond the Sabarimala controversy.
Hearing is going on on entry of women and religious traditions
The hearing in the Sabarimala temple case started from April 7. During this, the Central Government, while placing its argument on the entry of women, said that the entry of men is also restricted in many goddess temples of the country, hence religious traditions and faith should be respected. This matter is not limited to just one temple, but has become a constitutional question related to the entry and equality of women in religious places of different sects. For this reason, this hearing is being considered very important from both legal and social point of view.
Also read: 8th Pay Commission: From fitment factor to DA, how is the salary of government employees decided?
Ashwini Upadhyay raised broad issues during the debate
During the hearing on Tuesday, advocate Ashwini Upadhyay argued that religion is superior to sect and the history of communal conflicts is linked to the partition of the country. He said that in the last 2000 years, India got divided into many parts due to communal conflicts. He also said that the court should consider the long-term social consequences of its decisions. According to him, Articles 25 and 26 are written in a very limited manner and religious freedom should be interpreted in a broad sense. However, the court repeatedly asked him to return to the main topic.
Sanskrit, Constitution and Dr. Ambedkar were also mentioned.
During his arguments, Upadhyay also mentioned Sanskrit language, the terminology of the Constitution and BR Ambedkar. He claimed that Sanskrit has more letters than English and accurate translation of words like “constitution” or “dharma” into English is not possible. He also said that Dr. Ambedkar had introduced the bill to make Sanskrit the official language. Along with this, he also mentioned his PIL regarding inclusion of religion in primary education.
Justice Mahadevan expressed his displeasure
When the debate continued to move away from the core issue, Justice Mahadevan intervened pointedly. He said, “You are deviating from the topic we all are discussing. You said Sanskrit has 52 letters; similarly Tamil has 247 letters. Don’t go into all these topics. Focus on the issue itself.” This comment of the court was a clear indication that the constitutional bench wanted to focus only on the relevant legal questions. In a way, the court clearly reprimanded the lawyer and directed him to limit the debate.
Why is Sabarimala issue so important?
The Sabarimala case has been at the center of the debate over religious belief versus the right to equality for years. On the one hand, there is the matter of temple tradition and religious beliefs, and on the other hand, there is the question of women’s constitutional rights. This hearing of the Supreme Court can affect women’s rights not only in Sabarimala but also in other religious places of the country. Therefore, the eyes of the entire country are fixed on this matter.
Also read: Health department also surprised! 3,000 pregnant women missing! Did a big game happen in Yadgiri, Karnataka?