#Sabarimalahearing 1. Mr. Raju Ramachandran has resumed his submissions as the Amicus Curiae in support of the Petitioner
2. Mr. Ramachandran submits that while Article 17 was originally intended to tackle untouchability emanating from caste, nothing stops the Court from expansively interpreting it just as Article 21 has been interpreted over the years. #Sabarimala
3. Mr Ramachandran submits that if the basis for exclusion under traditional untouchability is defilement or pollution of the premises, the same logic applies to untouchability on account of defilement caused by menarche. #Sabarimala
4. If exclusion is based on the concept of pollution, the effect is the same as under Article 17, submits Mr. Ramachandran #Sabarimala
5. If the woman cannot undertake the penance of 41 days on account of menarche, then the exclusion is based on considerations of impurity associated with menstruation. #Sabarimala
6. Justice Nariman responds that if that were to be the case, would even menstratuating Brahmin women be entitled to protection under Article 17 on grounds of untouchability? Was that the intention of Article 17 and the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955?#Sabarimala
7. Mr. Ramachandran draws attention to the Statement of objects and reasons of the Protection of Civil Rights Act which says that it is difficult to define untouchability #Sabarimala
8. Justice Chandrachud weighs in to observe that the Protection of Civil Rights Act is limited to addressing untouchability against scheduled castes. #Sabarimala
9. Justice Nariman points out that the definition of place of worship under the Protection of Civil Rights Act is applicable to all faiths #Sabarimala
10. Justice Nariman observes that perhaps caste afflicts all faiths in the sub-continent, including his own community the Parsis where there is a distinction between Priestly and non-Priestly castes which wasn't the case in the "home country" of Parsis. #Sabarimala
11. Mr. Raju Ramachandran has concluded his submissions. #Sabarimala
12. Senior Advocate Mr. Surendranath has begun submissions on behalf of an impleader who supports the Petitioner. Mr. Surendranath challenges Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Act, 1965. #Sabarimala
13. Justice Indu Malhotra asks Mr. Surendranath what his position on Temples which keep men out. Justice Malhotra cites the Attukal Bhagavathy Temple in Kerala. #Sabarimala
14. Mr. Surendranath responds that keeping men out of Temples too would amount to discrimination against men and should not be permitted. #Sabarimala
15. Mr. Surendranath concludes his submissions. #Sabarimala
16. Counsel Mr. Wills Mathews submits on behalf of an intervenor who supports the Petitioner, that the practice of the #Sabarimala Temple is a consequence of degeneration of Buddhism in Kerala. He concludes his submissions.
17. Senior Advocate Mr. Jaideep Gupta now submits on behalf of the State Government of Kerala. #Sabarimala
18. The CJI informs Mr. Jaideep Gupta that the current position being taken by the State Government will be final and it will not be allowed to change its position. #Sabarimala
19- Mr. Jaideep Gupta supports the position of the Petitioner and calls upon the Court to interpret Article 13(1) of the Constitution. #Sabarimala
20. Justice Nariman questions the applicability of Article 13(1), to which Mr. Jaideep Gupta submits that the custom of the Temple is law under Article 13(1). #Sabarimala
21. Mr Jaideep Gupta had concluded his submissions for State Government. Now Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi starts for the Travancore Devaswom Board. #Sabarimala
22. Dr. Singhvi submits that the entire religious practice of the #Sabarimala Temple has been distorted out of context to give the impression that the practice is barbaric and medieval.
23. Dr. Singhvi submits that only the #Sabarimala Ayyappa Temple observes this religious practice and this is based on a well founded belief which enjoys protection an essential part of the Temple under Article 26
24. Dr. Singhvi submits that practices based on menstruation are spread across cultures. That being said, the basis of the #Sabarimala Temple's practice is related to the celibate form of the Deity who is a Naishtika Brahmachari.
25. Justice Nariman asks what happens to a woman who stops menstratuating at the age of 45. Dr. Singhvi submits that age is not the issue, the principle behind the age is the issue. #Sabarimala
26. Justice Nariman notes that the notification could have been worded better to restrict entry of women who are of reproductive age instead of specifying an age bracket. Dr. Singhvi agrees that the notification could have been worded that way. #Sabarimala
27. Justice Indu Malhotra points out that restrictions based on menstruation are present in other religions as well. Justice Malhotra draws attention to the Old Testament. #Sabarimala
28. Dr. Singhvi points out that concepts of purity and impurity across cultures. Hindus leave footwear outside the Temple whereas Christians enter the church with the footwear on. #Sabarimala
29. Dr. Singhvi asks there are 1000s of Ayyappa Temples across the country where there is no restriction of any kind. Why do the Petitioners insist on visiting the #Sabarimala Temple? The CJI responds saying "because they believe in the Deity".
30. Dr. Singhvi responds that if they indeed believe in the Deity in #Sabarimala, they must respect the traditions of the Temple and observe its practices.
31. Shri K. Parasaran submits that devotees don't have the right to change the character of the Deity according to their convenience. If they indeed wish to worship, they must respect the traditions of the #Sabarimala Temple.
32. The CJI observes that a condition which is impossible to follow is untenable in law. Hearing concluded for today. Hearing to continue on Tuesday. #Sabarimala
