Thread by @People4Dharma

1. #Sabarimala hearings commence. Dr. Singhvi submits on behalf of the Travancore Devaswom Board that he is limiting the scope of his submissions to only the Sabarimala Ayyappa Temple.

2. Dr. Singhvi is placing before the Court the history of the #Sabarimala Temple and the requirements of the vow to be observed for 41 days prior to visiting the Temple.

3. Dr. Singhvi submits that every Ayyappa devotee who observes the vow is himself treated as a Swami, which epifies the line Tat Tvam Asi

4. Justice Nariman points out that the Travancore Devaswom Board had earlier submitted before the Kerala High Court that even menstratuating women were permitted on the first five days of the relevant month. #Sabarimala

5. Justice Nariman asks what happens to the celibate nature of the Deity when women are allowed on certain days of the year. #Sabarimala

6. Justice Nariman asks if the practice is immemorial or recent. #Sabarimala

7. Dr. Singhvi points out that at this stage the Court is looking at all the issues afresh. Further he submits that there is no basis for the assumption that the practice at Sabarimala is related to menstruation. #Sabarimala

8. Dr. Singhvi submits that the language of the impugned notification of the age bar can be reworded to one which is based on women with reproductive capabilities as opposed to age. #Sabarimala

9. Dr. Singhvi is reading out extracts from the history of the #Sabarimala Temple and the celibate nature of the Deity.

10. Justice Chandrachud asks how can we start with the unconstitutional assumption that women with reproductive capabilities are not capable of observing the 41 day penance.

11. Dr. Singhvi submits that the test under the law is not whether you can exclude women. The test is what does the practice prescribe. Dr. Singhvi points out that no woman is allowed to enter a Mosque in India, regardless of whether she is menstratuating or not

12. Dr. Singhvi submits that test is whether the practice is long established, whether it is bonafide. #Sabarimala

13. Dr. Singhvi submits that the test is not whether the Court agrees the practice or not if it is established that Ayyappa devotees constitute a religious denomination and whether the practice is essential to the belief. #Sabarimala

14. Justice Chandrachud submits that after 1950 everything is subject to Constitutional ethos. Dr Singhvi submits that Constitutional ethos requires the court to apply the essentiality test. #Sabarimala

15. Justice Nariman adds that Constitutional morality is the compass which applies to all faiths. #Sabarimala.

16. Justice Nariman agrees with Dr. Singhvi that the bar of Entry of women into Mosques too would fall within this enquiry. #Sabarimala

17. The CJI weighs in and observes that Article 26 protects only the essential religious practices of religious denominations. #Sabarimala

18. Dr. Singhvi submits that if the restriction on entry has a nexus to the essential religious practice, it too is protected by Article 26

19. The CJI observes that the first thing that needs to be looked into is whether the restriction on entry of women with reproductive capabilities constitutes an essential part of the religious practice of the #Sabarimala Temple

20. Dr. Singhvi is walking the Court through documents which evidence the various aspects of the vow undertaken by Ayyappa Devotees before they start the journey to the #Sabarimala Temple.

21. Justice Nariman himself acknowledges that neither the State nor the Temple Board have said in their affidavits that the restriction is based on any notions of impurity associated with menstruation. #Sabarimala

22. Dr. Singhvi submits that the Thanthri of the Temple is the last word on the religious practices observed by the #Sabarimala Temple and where he is unsure, he has recourse to the practice of Devaprashnam.

23. Dr. Singhvi is reading out extracts from the judgement of the Kerala High Court. Justice Nariman points out that the High Court has held that Ayyappa devotees constitute a religious denomination under Article 26. #Sabarimala

24. The CJI questions the assumption that Ayyappa Devotees constitute a religious denomination, whereas Justice Nariman seems to agree that they indeed constitute a religious denomination. #Sabarimala

25. After reading out the evidence submits that the documentary suggests that there is a practice on the basis of belief. For the Court to disagree with it, a trial must be conducted before the Court can set aside a long standing essential religious practice. #Sabarimala

26. Dr. Singhvi submits that the burden is on the Petitioner to show evidence to dispel the practice which they have not placed so far. #Sabarimala

27. Dr. Singhvi submits that a time-bound six month trial should be conducted so that all parties can lead evidence with respect to the practice, before a decision is taken. #Sabarimala

28. Justice Nariman points out that the one who asserts custom must prove it. Dr. Singhvi submits that he has already placed the evidence on record. #Sabarimala

29. The CJI continues to observe that Dr. Singhvi has to prove that Ayyappa devotees constitute a religious denomination. #Sabarimala

30. Arguments to continue post lunch #Sabarimala

31. Dr. Singhvi resumes and submits that the Court cannot be invited without evidence to rule on facts that the practice in question is not longstanding. #Sabarimala

32. Dr. Singhvi is taking the Court through judgements on what constitutes as essential religious practice and what constitutes a religious denomination. #Sabarimala

33. Dr. Singhvi is reading out extracts from the Shirur Mutt decision. Justice Nariman says "what an outstanding judgement! Outstanding!" #Sabarimala

34. Dr. Singhvi is now reading out extracts from the Chidambaram Temple judgement of 2014. #Sabarimala

35. Justice Chandrachud asks- if all classes of Hindus can worship at #Sabarimala Temple, would the Temple still constitute a religious denomination?

36. Dr. Singhvi submits that even if Ayyappa Devotees don't constitute a religious denomination, they have rights under Article 25

37. Dr. Singhvi is now placing on Venkataramana Devaru judgment. #Sabarimala

38. Dr. Singhvi submits that if the law protects even dietary prescriptions based on religion, it certainly protects practices relating to entry into the Temple and worship of the Deity. #Sabarimala

39. Dr. Singhvi is reading out extracts from judgements which emphasise the importance of Agamas. #Sabarimala

40 Dr. Singhvi submits that it is not for the Court to comment on the rationality of religious beliefs. That the belief exists and traditions based on the belief have been practiced for centuries is sufficient to merit protection under Article 26. #Sabarimala

41. Dr. Singhvi is now placing reliance on the Ratilal Panachand judgement of the Supreme Court. #Sabarimala

42. Dr. Singhvi is now placing examples before the Court of Temples which place restrictions on the entry of men. #Sabarimala

43. Dr. Singhvi cites the Brahma Temple in Pushkar, a Parvathy Temple in Tamil Nadu, Attukal Bhagavathy Temple in Kerala, a Bhagavathy Temple in Kerala, a Temple in Bihar. #Sabarimala

44. Dr. Singhvi reiterates that all Mosques in India, except the Fatimid Bohri mosques, women are barred from entering. #Sabarimala

45. Dr. Singhvi submits that if the position of the Petitioner were to accepted, it would affect practices at these Temples also. Not all practices are based on misogyny. #Sabarimala

46. Mr. Parasaran points out that the Petitioner is not claiming a right of worship. They have filed the Petition as a social issue. They can't even assert Article 25(1). #Sabarimala

47. Dr Singhvi submits that the issue of evidence of tradition only after a trial is conducted before the Court exercises powers under Article 32. #Sabarimala

48. Dr. Singhvi submits that moharram processions too could be Objected to on grounds of notions of savagery or barbarism prevalent in 2018. #Sabarimala

49. Dr. Singhvi is also citing the practice of Aghoris to point to the diversity of Hindu practices. #Sabarimala

50. Dr. Singhvi is drawing attention Judaism's approach to menstruation. Justice Indu Malhotra acknowledges the example. #Sabarimala

51. Dr. Singhvi submits that if at all reform is called for, it has to come from within the community. #Sabarimala

52. Dr. Singhvi submits that several Hindu women understand and respect the tradition. It is not a practice imposed on women by patriarchal men. #Sabarimala

53. Justice Chandrachud observes that the acceptance by women could be the result of social conditioning. Dr. Singhvi responds that it is not true in this day and age. #Sabarimala

54. Dr. Singhvi is now addressing the Petitioner's arguments on Article 14. He submits that the classification is intelligible and is intra-women, not men v women. #Sabarimala

55. Justice Chandrachud is asking why there is no puberty or andropause related restriction on men. Dr. Singhvi submits that the comparison doesn't hold water since the condition is based on the celibate nature of the Deity. #Sabarimala

56. Justice Nariman asks if women are women can visit other Ayyappa Temples on non menstratuating days, perhaps the restriction can be traced to patriarchy. Dr. Singhvi disagrees and says there is no evidence for this assumption. #Sabarimala

57. Dr Singhvi submits that the Court cannot project notions of male chauvinism from other cases to #Sabarimala case without examining the evidence.

58. Dr. Singhvi proceeds to address the Article 17 argument of the Petitioner, to which the CJI says that the Article may not apply to this case. #Sabarimala

59. Dr Singhvi still proceeds to submit on the non applicability of Article 17 to the #Sabarimala case and is citing judgements to support the argument.

60. Dr. Singhvi has concluded his submissions. Mr. Parasaran starts tomorrow for the Nair Service Society. #Sabarimala