Two notes on the Sabarimala hearings from this morning, based on the live tweets.
1. Disappointed at the SC's refusal to seriously engage with the argument that Art. 17 should be interpreted broadly. Wealth of historical evidence in the CA Debates for this +
(1/n)
1. Disappointed at the SC's refusal to seriously engage with the argument that Art. 17 should be interpreted broadly. Wealth of historical evidence in the CA Debates for this +
(1/n)
+ the fact that the SC has recently talked quite a bit about the "transformative Constitution". Transformative constitutionalism requires understanding these rights in a broader and more radical sense, based upon their histories, rather than narrower.
(2/n)
(2/n)
2. The good part - the CJI's recognition that the 41-day penance requirement may be facially neutral, but indirectly burdens women, and is therefore constitutionally suspect. The SC has yet to accept the concept of indirect discrimination as part of our constitutional law. (3/n)
The Delhi HC recently made a start, in an excellent judgment. indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2018/06/26/rou…
Hopefully the SC will follow suit.
(4/4)
Hopefully the SC will follow suit.
(4/4)
