Understanding the fascinating Supreme Court order & debate among judges on Sabarimala | ep 316

Correction: At 5:17, it's outside instead of otuside. Error is regretted.

The SC in a 3-2 order referred the Sabarimala review petitions to a 7-Judge bench, and listed for it 7 questions with great bearing on the future of secular India. But the two dissenting judges make a persuasive case too. @ShekharGupta with episode 316 of #CutTheClutter
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connect with ThePrint

[TheAjay]

hence a uniform civil code!One ring to rule them all!

[realself]

Wonderful analysis. No one should dictate to Swami Ayyapan. Justice Indu Malhotra is sensible. Activists who have no attacment to the deity or Sabarimala just want to prove a point.

[ajitkumarsingh]

My Point:: Either leave interfering into religious believes or Make each and every religion Rational by interfering their believes.

[PiyushGupta-rufy]

Before election in 2018 supreme court was also thinking thinking that modi govt is gonna go, but that's not the case .Only modi govt has ensured that supereme court is taking it's biased dicision back.

[TheJpswaminathan]

Just a minor point - Shiroor Math is in Udupi, Karnataka and not Tamil Nadu.

[ocmu]

This is actually a huge verdict. Bigger than ram mandir. Ram mandir was always a title dispute while this case will change the face of india and bring back the lost glory.

Swamiye Sharanam Aiyappa 🙏🙏

[bmm]

The deity does not 'have to be kept away from fertile women' but the deity as a brahmachari has taken a vow to not have a social association with the age group of 'fertile women' and this wish has to be respected.

[IndiaUpClose]

Make a video on JNU, what kind of courses it offers and what contribution it has made for the Nation im recent past. Thanks.

[THEUNDERCOVERMONK]

The dissenting judges in Sabrimala are wrong as Hinduism is not a homogeneous religion. Supreme court can't force Hindus to behave in a similar manner when there are different practices and customs. You can't equate Ayappa devotees and Shaivaite devotees. Court has to recognize things for what they are and not push down "all religions and people are equal" to Hindus when they are not.

[skanda]

Seems Constitution's several clauses contradict each other which leaves a lot open to individual interpretation

[vkramchander]

Kudos, Mr Gupta for an excellent analysis! You have rightly said that it is the nature of manifestation of the Deity in the temple at Sabarimala as a Naishtik brahmachari that has led to this restriction on women of menstruating age entering the temple . Girls below 10 years of age and women above 50 years are allowed. At all other Ayyappa temples in India, women are freely allowed. Only this temple has the restriction in accordance with the legends associated with the Deity here.It is not gender discrimination as the leftist illiberal lobby is crying hoarse.
Once a devotee undertakes the pilgrimage and wears the Tulsimala, he is expected to observe austerities like shunning non vegetarian food and sex, leading a simple and pious life etc, The women in his household also live in accordance with the austerities required-- in other words, a sattvik life.
The devotee wears black and, grows a beard etc signifying his status, he will pray at Ayyappa temple daily if possible, he will generally not eat outside food etc and other ladies also give due respect and behave appropriately with Ayyappans( as they are now called ). When persons sacrifice things that are dear to them, albeit for limited time - maximum 41 days - for having a darshan of Lord Ayyappa at this shrine, it fortifies their belief in the Deity, who is himself a brahmachari and is believed to be very powerful and grants the wishes of devotees.
It is this compact between Deity and Devotee, reinforced by the austerities( particularly brahmacharya), that the symbolism of menstruating age women visiting the temple, weakens. Do the Khamkhwahs have the right to destroy an age old tradition? Should the SC plunge enthusiastically into this venture ( as some judges seem to be itching to do ), cheered on by ' Liberal' fundamentalists, when millions of Hindu women who believe in Lord Ayyappa, have no problem?
No active harm to women, health or public morality is caused After all they are free to go to any other Ayyappa temple at any time, except when menstruating, which is the case for all temples all over India. There is a concerted manufacturing of a sense of deprivation of women's rights by the leftist lobby who are not believers at all.
The devotees who undertake this pilgrimage do constitute a denomination, though for a limited period, bound as they are by common practices and observances, quite distinct from practices elsewhere and at other times. Is there any bar on a limited period differentiation?

[rahulmn]

Anybody who brings disrepute or tries to bring disrepute to the supreme court either from inside or outside should be tried for treason. As the Apex court is one of the institution of India which is unsullied and universally trusted. Also cheers to BR Ambedkar, his wisdom is far-reaching and it will take many more generations to fully understand his work. He is one of the rishis of Bharat.

[abhyodaysisodia]

Shekhar, please put out the capitalist perspective on subsidized education

[Youreverdayguide]

Sir have always seen u in a kurta, the shirt suits you well too !!

[mayankagnihotri]

100crore population, if everyone comes, mujhe bhi kuch karna hai. What a hell India will become.

[upadisetty]

The word Hindu should be clearly defined. It is an umbrella term referring to Indians who practice Indian culture and ethos that was born and evolved in India before Abrahamic religions too over India.

[sagarhegde]

I had a doubt, if they had a dissenting view in the Sabarimala review petition, doesn't constitutionality of triple talaq come into question, not that i personally support any practise. But if that law comes into question wouldn't the same locus standi come into the equation?

[sakshamsharma]

Have a question in 2024...was the sabrimala case(along with other similar cases) reviewed by a larger SC bench and what was the outcome?

[anupvkale]

I think differentiating between immoral and privacy of faith is a greater challenge. On the one hand, there are many religious practices which are a private affair of every community but at the same time, they also need to see those practices are not allowing immoral or illegal acts. If allowing or banning of a certain gender or age group has any particular reason than it's better there should be a dialogue and discussion from the respective experts. In the case of Hindu worship places, in general, no outright ban is practised but there certain exceptional cases which require discussion. Court orders may not be the ultimate resolve since this is a domain of faith a private practice in an exceptional scenario which may not be classified as totally immoral.

[rajagopalramachandran]

The court verdict is a reversal of earlier verdict!!!
initially it was 4-1 verdict in favour women's entry. Now it is 3-2 in favour of reviewing the earlier verdict in favour women's entry. This time it went beyond that to include practices by other religions.
Religion and faith is a private matter and should not be part of court work to interpret in different ways based on each judges outlook. In ayodhya judgement court had made a remark that the court should keep away from matter of faith and religion.Tommorrow court may have to sit (for decades) to ascertain God is a reality or myth. Each judge has his own view and the case can go on forever. A western educated judge try to interpret according to western concept and create more confusion without thinking their verdicts impact on millions of devoutees and local factors. Also interpretation of law is subjective and inconclusive leading to more reviews at the expense of tax payers money.
For information there are temples where men cannot enter. Also almost all ayyappa temple allow both men and women. In sabarimala, the case is different because the form of deity. Why waste time when lakhs of other serious matter are pending with court.
Also there a hidden agenda to built an airport in the forest land, adjacent to sabarimala, belonging to government but illegally occupied by Christian missionary, who wants the airport for their religious convenience; to make airport vaiable you need to have more ayyappa devoutees; hence allow women devoutee entry to temple and increase the air traffic. Somethings have crooked motives and need to look into and judge carefully