Sabarimala Hearing: Supreme Court reserves judgement on review petitions
New Delhi, Feb 6 (IBNS): The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its verdict on a batch of petitions seeking review of its Sept 28, 2018 judgement which had allowed women of all age group to enter the Sabarimala Temple.
Submissions on behalf of parties including the Kerala government, Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB), Nair Service Society and others were heard by the five-judge constitution bench which was headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi.
On Wednesday the Kerala Government told the court that the order should not be reviewed.
The bench also comprises Justices R F Nariman, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra. The review petitions were originally scheduled to be heard on January 22, but could not be taken up as Justice Malhotra was on medical leave.
The top court gave its landmark verdict on September 28, 2018 holding that women of all ages can visit the temple."The practice of age restriction can't be treated as an essential religious practice", it had said.
Justice Indu Malhotra, however, was of the view that it was not for courts to determine which religious practices are to be struck down except in issues of social evils like 'Sati'.
The top court's verdict triggered waves of protests across Kerala and as many as four dozen review petitions were filed seeking review.
Meanwhile, a plea seeking contempt action against the head priest of the Sabarimala temple has been filed, alleging that he had ordered cleaning of the premises after some women had visited the temple.
On Monday, the Kerala government admitted that just two women, between the age of 10 and 50, have entered the shrine following the apex court’s judgment.
Support Our Journalism
We cannot do without you.. your contribution supports unbiased journalism
IBNS is not driven by any ism- not wokeism, not racism, not skewed secularism, not hyper right-wing or left liberal ideals, nor by any hardline religious beliefs or hyper nationalism. We want to serve you good old objective news, as they are. We do not judge or preach. We let people decide for themselves. We only try to present factual and well-sourced news.
