Senior Advocates Raju Ramachandran and K Ramamurthy have been appointed Amicus Curiae in the case pertaining to entry of women in Sabarimala temple in Kerala..The hearing, which started as a mentioning for an adjournment at 2 pm today, stretched for 45 minutes, with the court engaging in discussion with the lawyers on Hindu philosophy..Senior Advocate KK Venugopal appeared for the Travancore Devaswom Board, while Senior Advocate V Giri appeared for State of Kerala. Senior Advocate Indira Jaising appeared for NGO Happy to Bleed, which has sought impleadment in the case..The case was listed as item 303 in court 4, but was mentioned by KK Venugopal at 2 pm seeking an adjournment. He said that the Devaswom Board needed more time to collect relevant materials pertaining to the practice and customs of the temple and to file its response..The Court asked the Kerala government about the change in its stance. The State government had earlier opposed the practice and said that women should be allowed in the temple. But it had filed a fresh affidavit few days back supporting the custom..“Can the State take a somersault?”, asked the court..V Giri replied that there was an error in the previous stance and the State was duty bound to correct it and bring it to the Court’s notice..The Court then proceeded to engage with the lawyers on Constitutional aspects and on the philosophical grounding of Hindu traditions..The court asked,.“Is it so intrinsically fundamental to the faith. Is spirituality only for men? Are women incapable of spirituality?”.KK Venugopal said that the practice is fundamental to the faith and proceeded to explain the pilgrimage and the “vratam” undertaken by the pilgrims..The Bench then quizzed the lawyers on the historical origins of discrimination against women..“If you go by Sanatana dharma, men and women are to be treated equal. Vedas and Upanishads don’t discriminate between men and women. When did discrimination begin historically?”, asked Justice Dipak Misra..KK Venugopal replied that it is a matter which requires “deep research” by the court..“We are not taking a narrow view. We want to strike a balance between the right to equality and the right to religious practice. This custom will be tested on the parameters of constitutional equality and right to custom and religious practices”, the Bench said..The Court then appointed Raju Ramachandran and K Ramamurthy as Amicus Curiae, with advocate Parameswaran tasked with assisting them..The case will now be heard on April 11.
Senior Advocates Raju Ramachandran and K Ramamurthy have been appointed Amicus Curiae in the case pertaining to entry of women in Sabarimala temple in Kerala..The hearing, which started as a mentioning for an adjournment at 2 pm today, stretched for 45 minutes, with the court engaging in discussion with the lawyers on Hindu philosophy..Senior Advocate KK Venugopal appeared for the Travancore Devaswom Board, while Senior Advocate V Giri appeared for State of Kerala. Senior Advocate Indira Jaising appeared for NGO Happy to Bleed, which has sought impleadment in the case..The case was listed as item 303 in court 4, but was mentioned by KK Venugopal at 2 pm seeking an adjournment. He said that the Devaswom Board needed more time to collect relevant materials pertaining to the practice and customs of the temple and to file its response..The Court asked the Kerala government about the change in its stance. The State government had earlier opposed the practice and said that women should be allowed in the temple. But it had filed a fresh affidavit few days back supporting the custom..“Can the State take a somersault?”, asked the court..V Giri replied that there was an error in the previous stance and the State was duty bound to correct it and bring it to the Court’s notice..The Court then proceeded to engage with the lawyers on Constitutional aspects and on the philosophical grounding of Hindu traditions..The court asked,.“Is it so intrinsically fundamental to the faith. Is spirituality only for men? Are women incapable of spirituality?”.KK Venugopal said that the practice is fundamental to the faith and proceeded to explain the pilgrimage and the “vratam” undertaken by the pilgrims..The Bench then quizzed the lawyers on the historical origins of discrimination against women..“If you go by Sanatana dharma, men and women are to be treated equal. Vedas and Upanishads don’t discriminate between men and women. When did discrimination begin historically?”, asked Justice Dipak Misra..KK Venugopal replied that it is a matter which requires “deep research” by the court..“We are not taking a narrow view. We want to strike a balance between the right to equality and the right to religious practice. This custom will be tested on the parameters of constitutional equality and right to custom and religious practices”, the Bench said..The Court then appointed Raju Ramachandran and K Ramamurthy as Amicus Curiae, with advocate Parameswaran tasked with assisting them..The case will now be heard on April 11.
