New Delhi, Oct 8: The review petition filed in the Supreme Court challenging the Sabarimala verdict that allowed the entry of women of all ages says that not even the greatest judge can match the voice of the people.
The review plea was filed by Shylaja Vijayan, the president of the National Ayyappa Devotees Association.
In the review plea, it is stated," the petitioners believe that no legal luminary, not even the greatest of jurists or judge, can be a match to the common sense and wisdom of the masses. No judicial pronouncement, even of the highest judicial tribunal in this country can be a match for the voice of the people, the petition stated while terming the original verdict as absolutely untenable, irrational and perverse.
The review petition comes in the wake of the Kerala government refusing to interfere and file an appeal in the Supreme Court. There have been massive protests on the streets questioning the verdict of the SC, which allowed the entry of women of all ages into the temple.
It may be recalled that Justice Indu Malhotra in her dissenting verdict had said that permitting such PILs in religious matters would open up the floodgates to interlopers to question religious beliefs and practises, even if the petitioner is not a believer of a particular religion, or a worshipper of a particular shrine.
Shylaja Vijayan, while citing Justice Malhotra said that neither the association (Indian Young Lawyers Association) not other petitioners therein averred that they are devotees of Lord Ayyappa; that they were denied their right to visit the temple at Sabarimala and such denial has resulted in violation of their fundamental rights.
The review also argues that the rights of the petitioners were not violated by the Sabarimala prohibition and hence they had no business to get a remedy in court under Article 32. Ubi jus ibis remedium- where there is a right there is a remedy.
Further it was stated that the right to move the court under Article 32 for violation of Fundamental Rights, must be based on a pleading that the petitioners' personal rights to worship in this temple have been violated. They do not claim to be devotees of the temple, the review stated.