Advocate for Ram Lalla hopes Ayodhya Verdict will have bearing on Sabarimala review plea
New Delhi, Nov 09: Viewing the Supreme Court's verdict in favour of the construction of a Ram Temple on the disputed site in Ayodhya on Saturday, advocate KN Bhat who advocated on record for deity Ram Lalla hopes that the judgment would also have a bearing on the review petition in the Sabarimala case, in which an order is expected in the next week.
Bhat believes that in the Ayodhya verdict, the court has held that the issue was not whether the disputed land was the birth place of Lord Ram but whether Hindus believed it was the birthplace. "That has been proved and in these matters, belief should not be questioned," he said.
Similarly, in the Sabarimala case also the main argument deals with belief. Hence, Bhat added, "The argument that the court (last year) did not accept fully was whether Hindus believe women's entry of a particular area for this temple must be banned. There is no scientific reason, but the devotees believe this is what it is."
On September 2018, a five judge Constitution Bench led by former CJI Dipak Mishra judgment held that not allowing women in their "menstruating years" into the Sabarimala is ultra vires the constitution, and all women should be allowed to enter the shrine.
For the Sabarimala case a total number of 65 review petitions were filed against the order and a Constitution Bench led by CJI Ranjan Gogoi will pronounce its verdict on the pleas next week.
Prime contention of the petitioners- the practice of not allowing women into the shrine was due to the celibate nature (abstaining from marriage and sexual relations, typically for religious reasons) of Sabarimala temple's presiding deity Lord Ayyappa. The petitioners also stated that constitutional morality should not be applied to matters of faith.
Bhat on Saturday after the announcement of the Ayodhya verdict said that another important thing was that in the Sabarimala case, the people who objected to women not being allowed to enter the shrine were not women.
The advocate said, "It is an organisation represented by five men - and no woman has come and said we have been denied the right to go to Sabarimala. So the religious practice of one religion has been challenged by someone else and taken (up)."
Challenging the opinion of Justice Indu Malhotra in the Sabaramila case Bhat pointed out that, "She had correctly pointed out that, what is my faith is my faith; no one can go and question it. Because religion is a matter of faith."
Dismissing the Muslim Law Board's assertion that it would file a review plea against the Ayodhya verdict, Bhat said there is "nothing like an appeal against the present judgment".
Bhat, Supreme Court counsel also said that he was fully satisfied with the order in the Ayodhya case and "couldn't have written a better order".