• search
For Quick Alerts
ALLOW NOTIFICATIONS  
For Daily Alerts

Sabarimala: Justice Indu Malhotra who recorded dissent in 2018, today delivered majority verdict

|

New Delhi, Nov 14: Justice Indu Malhotra who was the sole dissenting member of the Bench that delivered the original Sabarimala order was today part of the majority that referred the matter to a larger Bench.

Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi, Justices A M Khanwilkar and Indu Malhotra were of the view that the matter is heard by the larger Bench. Justices R F Nariman and D Y Chandrachud have, however, recorded a dissenting verdict.

Justice Indu Malhotra

On September 28, 2018, the Supreme Court had allowed the entry of women of all ages into the Sabarimala Temple. The Bench was headed by the then Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra. Justice Indu Malhotra was the lone member on that Bench who wrote a dissenting verdict.

Not just Sabarimala, larger Bench will take account of women’ entry into other religious places too

She had said issues raised have serious implications for all religions. Issues which have deep religious connotation should be tinkered with to maintain a secular atmosphere in the country.

The right to equality claimed by some conflicts with the right to follow a religious practice is again a fundamental right.

India has diverse religious practises and constitutional morality would allow anyone to profess and practise a religion she or he believes in and it is not for the court to interfere in such religious practises, even it may appear discriminatory.

No stay on Sep 28 verdict: Women of all ages can enter Sabarimala until larger Bench decides

    Sabarimala verdict: A closer look at what the fight is about

    The present judgment will not be limited to Sabarimala alone and it will have wide ramifications. Issues of deep religious sentiments should not interfere.

    What is essential practise in religion is for the religion to decide. It is a matter of personal faith and India is a land of diverse faiths. Constitutional morality in a pluralistic society gives freedom to practise even irrational customs.

    Sabarimala: What the two judges said in their dissenting verdict

    Judges cannot intervene and decide on whether a practice is violative of fundamental rights or not. Personal views of judges do not matter. A religious denomination has the freedom to believe and even practice even if their beliefs are illogical or irrational.

    For Daily Alerts
    Get Instant News Updates
    Enable
    x
    Notification Settings X
    Time Settings
    Done
    Clear Notification X
    Do you want to clear all the notifications from your inbox?
    Settings X
    X
    We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. This includes cookies from third party social media websites and ad networks. Such third party cookies may track your use on Oneindia sites for better rendering. Our partners use cookies to ensure we show you advertising that is relevant to you. If you continue without changing your settings, we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies on Oneindia website. However, you can change your cookie settings at any time. Learn more