Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Justice Indu Malhotra, the lone woman in the Constitutional Bench that heard the Sabarimala case, dissented and opposed the entry of women of all groups in the temple.
According to her, courts should not interfere in issues involving deep religious sentiments. The Sabarimala shrine and the deity come under the protection of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. The Court should not interfere unless in the case of any aggrieved person from that section or religion as the notion of rationality should not be seen in mattersof religion.
She expressed that India has diverse practises, and thus, freedom to practice should be granted to even the irrational customs pertaining to the Constitutional morality in a pluralistic society.Religious practices cannot and should not be tested solely upon the touchstone of reasonableness in Article 14.
Disagreeing with the majority, she further went on to holdthe status of a separate religious denominationfor the Ayyappas on the ground that If there are clear attributes that there exists a section with identifiable characteristics, they deem to constitute a religious denomination.
86540
103860
630
114
59824