, 74 tweets, 54 min read Read on Twitter
#Sabarimala: Hearing in 65 petitions including 56 review petitions and 4 fresh writ petitions to commence in Supreme Court at 10.30 AM.

Will be tweeting the proceedings live.


@BJP4India @cpimspeak @INCIndia @BJP4Keralam @vijayanpinarayi
#Sabarimala: Bench of CJI Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Rohinton Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra.


@cpimspeak @BJP4India @INCIndia @INCKerala @BJP4Keralam @vijayanpinarayi
#Sabarimala: Bench assembles, hearing commences.


@BJP4India @INCIndia @cpimspeak
#Sabarimala: CJI Ranjan Gogoi asks lawyers appearing in review petitions to limit their arguments to review grounds.

Sr. Counsel K Parasaran commences submissions.

@BJP4India @cpimspeak @BJP4Keralam @INCIndia @vijayanpinarayi
#Sabarimala: This case primarily involves enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 25.

Interesting aspect is both 0etitioners and respondents in this case are relying on Art. 25, submits K Parasaran.

@BJP4India @cpimspeak @INCIndia
#Sabarimala: Article 15 threw open all public institutions of secular category. It does not refer to public institutions of religious category, K Parasaran.

@BJP4India @INCIndia @cpimspeak
#Sabarimala: Justice Rohinton Nariman interjects, I have referred only to Article 15(2).

@BJP4India @cpimspeak @INCIndia
#Sabarimala: K Parasaran referring to A 25(2).

Submits unless practice is very abhorrent, Court normally does not interfere in activity associated with religious institutions, cites Jehovah Witnesses case to buttress his point.


@BJP4India @cpimspeak @INCIndia
#Sabarimala: Parasaran now making submissions on Article 17 regarding untouchability.

@BJP4India @cpimspeak @INCIndia @vijayanpinarayi
#Sabarimala: The expanded meaning given in judgment to untouchability under Article 17 will result in it applying only to Hindu Religious institutions under Article 25(2)(b), K Parasaran.

@cpimspeak @BJP4India @INCIndia @vijayanpinarayi
#Sabarimala: Parasaran now moves to the Preamble of the Constitution.

#Sabarimala: What if we ban Scheduled caste woman between 10 and 50?

Rohinton Nariman J. asks Parasaran in response to Parasaran arguing against expansion of Article 17.
#Sabarimala: Dont go by the notion that it was struck down only on the basis of Untouchability, remarks Nariman J.

@cpimspeak @BJP4India @INCIndia
#Sabarimala: Nariman J also brings up Section 3 of Kerala Act to stating that the Rules are contrary to the Act.


@BJP4India @cpimspeak @INCIndia
#Sabarimala: K Parasaran concludes, Sr. Adv. V Giri now commences his arguments.


@cpimspeak @BJP4India @INCIndia
#Sabarimala: Any person who asserts right under Article 25(2)(b) to worship has to do it in consonance with the nature of deity, V Giri.
#Sabarimala: V Giri relies on Mahendran judgment, says in the absence of any material which shows that it is an exclusionary practice, the 2018 verdict should be reconsidered.

#Sabarimala: Sr. V Giri now countering the 'Constitutional morality' argument which he submits find no place in Constitution but has been evolved by 'Your Lordships'.

#Sabarimala: Untouchability has nothing to do here.

Entry is sought to be prohibited only due to nature of deity. It is not an exclusionary practice, V Giri.

#Sabarimala: Sr. Adv V Giri concludes

Sr. Adv @DrAMSinghvi commences his arguments.
#Sabarimala: The exclusion in this case is based on inherent physiological characteristics which has nexus with the nature of the deity, submits @DrAMSinghvi
#Sabarimala: The above argument of intrinsic character of naishtika bhramachari of the deity has not been dealt with by the 2018 judgment and that is my ground for review, @DrAMSinghvi
#Sabarimala: The Gods in Hinduism are worshipped in various forms and manifestations and this particular God/ deity is worshipped in this manner, @DrAMSinghvi

#Sabarimala: Article 17 has to be read as a caste based or religion based exclusion.

In this case there is no exclusion of women or men or any caste of men or women, submits @DrAMSinghvi
#Sabarimala: My third submission is regarding Constitutional morality.

My argument is where rights under Article 25 are under consideration, Constitutional morality has to be applied keeping in mind the occupied field facet, @DrAMSinghvi
#Sabarimala: Further, while applying Constitutional morality the subjective morality of devotees have to be considered, @DrAMSinghvi

#Sabarimala: Many aspects of faith will be irrational. But it is not a Science museum but religion. So Constitutional Morality should not be applied in all of it. Court should be careful while applying Constitutional morality in matters of religion, @DrAMSinghvi
#Sabarimala: Hinduism is one of the most diverse religions. There is so much diversity within it. To seek an "essential religious practice" in it might not be the correct approach, @DrAMSinghvi


@INCIndia @BJP4India @cpimspeak
#Sabarimala: @DrAMSinghvi concludes.

Shekhar Naphade commences his arguments.

This is not a matter within the public law domain. It is an internal affair of a particular community, submits Naphade.

#Sabarimalatemple: This is a matter of faith, Shekhar Naphade.

Unless there is a criminal law which prohibits a particular religious practice like say Sati, courts cannot interfere, Shekhar Naphade.

@INCIndia @BJP4India @cpimspeak
#Sabarimalatemple: Who is to decide what is an essential religious practice, it should be the members of that particular community, argues Shekhar Naphade.
#Sabarimalatemple: We all saw on TV how social peace in Kerala was disturbed due to the judgment, Shekhar Naphade.
#Sabarimalatemple: Shekhar Naphade concludes, R Venkataramani commences submissions.

#Sabarimalatemple: This is a Sampradaya, either you believe in it or dont, R Venkataramani.
#Sabarimalatemple: There are two conflicting judgment of Constitution Bench of SC

One is Puttaswamy judgment on Aadhaar which says individual rights subjective to community interest.

Second is Sabarimala judgment which props up individual rights, counsel for petitioners
#Sabarimalatemple: How can court split faith into permissible faith and impermissible faith, faith is faith, counsel for petitioner.

#Sabarimalatemple: We will hear two more lawyers on the side of review petitioners, remarks CJI Ranjan Gogoi.

#SupremeCourt #Sabarimala
#Sabarimalatemple: Mohan Parasaran commences submissions
#Sabarimalatemple: Merely because Ayyappas are from different religions is no ground to deny them denomination status, Mohan Parasaran.

#Sabarimala #SupremeCourt
#Sabarimalatemple: There are several other places of worship across India with gender based restrictions which will be affected by the 2018 judgment. None of them were heard, submits Gopal Sankaranarayanan.
#Sabarimalatemple: @jsaideepak now making submissions.

There is no reference to Section 4 of the Act, submits Sai Deepak.

#Sabarimala: The current practice is not present in Rule 3(b). It flows from the two notifications, submits Sai Deepak J. @jsaideepak

#Sabarimala: When it comes to essential religious practice, Court should accept the word of the community, unless the Court finds that the community has made a false submission to that effect, Sai Deepak.

#SupremeCourt #Sabarimala
#Sabarimalatemple: Review petitioners conclude.

"We will give you 90 minutes", CJI Ranjan Gogoi to respondents.
#Sabarimalatemple: Sr. Counsel Jaideep Gupta for State of Kerala submits "We are opposing review since no grounds have been made out for review"

#SabarimalaReview #SupremeCourt
#Sabarimalatemple: A challenge on the ground that Articles 15 and 17 have not been considered will not hold ground, Jaideep Gupta.

#SupremeCourt #Sabarimala
#Sabarimalatemple: The review petitioners have analysed judgment in detail. That cannot be done in review, Jaideep Gupta.
#Sabarimalatemple: Non consideration of arguments cannot be ground for review, Jaideep Gupta.

#Sabarimala #SupremeCourt
#Sabarimalatemple: Not necessary to review the judgment simply because Article 17 has not been considered by all the judges on the Bench, Jaideep Gupta.
#Sabarimalatemple: On essential practice there is tendency to confuse between essential practice of religion and essential practice of a temple.

In this case, it is not an essential religious practice of the religion, Jaideep Gupta.
#Sabarimalatemple: If Your Lordships go into essential practice of temple, each temple will have unique essential practice and hence each temple will be denomination temple.

This would mean complete destruction of essential practice test, Jaidep Gupta.
#Sabarimalatemple: So essential practice of individual temple will not amount to essential religious practice of religion for the purpose of Constitutional test, Jaideep Gupta.

#Sabarimala #SupremeCourt
#Sabarimalatemple: It is not s private issue but a public law issue unless they argue that women between age 10 to 50 are not a class of Hindus, Jaideep Gupta.
#Sabarimalatemple: Non discrimination and non exclusion are two values found throughout our Constitution, Jaideep Gupta.
#Sabarimalatemple: Social peace has been destroyed is one argument that has been made. However, that is not something which Constitutional court should worry about while deciding Constitutional questions, Jaideep Gupta.

#sabrimala #SupremeCourt
#Sabarimalatemple: Jaideep Gupta concludes for State of Kerala.
#Sabarimalatemple: Sr. Counsel Vijay Hansaria now making submissions for State of Kerala in SLP against Kerala HC order.

Bench rises for lunch. Hearing to continue at 2 pm.

#SupremeCourt #Sabarimala
#Sabarimala: Bench reassembles, Sr. Counsel Rakesh Dwivedi begins arguments for Travancore Devaswom Board.

#Sabarimalatemple #SupremeCourt

@cpimspeak @BJP4India @INCIndia
#Sabarimalatemple: Any practice which denies an equal right to practice or propogate the religion falls foul of Art. 25, Sr. Adv. Rakesh Dwivedi.

@INCIndia @cpimspeak @BJP4India
#Sabarimalatemple: Justice Indu Malhotra observes that Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) had argued against the entry of women in the main case.

Rakesh Dwivedi says TDB has taken a decision to respect the judgment and not seek review.

@cpimspeak @BJP4India @INCIndia @BJP4Keralam
#Sabarimalatemple: Rakesh Dwivedi pointing out various questions of law addressed by the 2018 judgment and how each judge addressed them.

@cpimspeak @BJP4Keralam @INCKerala
#Sabarimalatemple: We have to transform society and include women in all walks of life. We should not point out biological attributes to exclude women from any walk of life, Rakesh Dwivedi.

@cpimspeak @BJP4Keralam @INCIndia
#Sabarimalatemple: "Equality" runs through the Constitution, Rakesh Dwivedi. @cpimspeak @BJP4Keralam @INCKerala
#Sabarimalatemple: Rakesh Dwivedi concludes arguments for Travancore Devaswom Board.

@cpimspeak @INCIndia @BJP4Keralam @INCKerala
#Sabarimalatemple: @IJaising commences submissions.

The women who entered the #Sabarimala are facing social exclusion, a purification ceremony was held in temple after they entered, submits Jaising.

@cpimspeak @BJP4Keralam @INCKerala
#Sabarimalatemple: Purification ceremony being held affirms that menstruating women are considered 'polluted', submits @IJaising
#Sabarimalatemple: The argument of Parasaran is that A.15(2) does not apply to Hindu temples.

But last words of Art.15 (2)(b) is "dedicated to use of General public".

So a public temple like Sabarimala is covered by A.15. It is not a family temple, submits @IJaising
#Sabarimalatemple: Interpret all Articles of Constitution harmoniously, @IJaising
#Sabarimalatemple: What was at stake in the original hearing of this case was that of gender justice, submits @IJaising

@cpimspeak @INCKerala @BJP4Keralam

#Sabarimalatemple: On dissenting judgment of Indu Malhotra J. , @IJaising says it has relied upon other dissenting judgments.
#Sabarimalatemple: If the judgment was against us, we would not have rioted, says @IJaising. We would have filed review and curative but not indulged in violence.

@cpimspeak @BJP4Keralam @INCKerala

#Sabarimala #SupremeCourt
#Sabarimalatemple: A case for review is not made out. Your Lordships may keep in mind the basic feature of Indian Constitution which is gender justice, @IJaising concludes while seeking positive directions to facilitate entry of women who have applied online.

#Sabarimalatemple: Most of the review petitioners here are violators of the judgment of this Hon'ble court who were rioting on streets.

Your Lordships should ask them on what grounds they have come here in review, adv. PV Dinesh.

@cpimspeak @BJP4Keralam
#Sabarimalatemple: Supreme Court reserves judgment in 65 petitions including 56 review petitions and 4 fresh writ petitions.

#SupremeCourt #Sabarimala

@INCKerala @BJP4Keralam @cpimspeak @vijayanpinarayi
Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.

Like this thread? Get email updates or save it to PDF!

Subscribe to Bar & Bench
Profile picture

Get real-time email alerts when new unrolls are available from this author!

This content may be removed anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!