New Delhi, Nov 14 (SocialNews.XYZ) The Supreme Court on Thursday kept the final decision on the Sabarimala review and writ petitions under temporary suspension till a larger bench of seven judges settles the exact role of the court in deciding whether a particular practice is essential or integral to a religion.

"The subject review petitions as well as the writ petitions may, accordingly, remain pending until determination of the questions indicated by a larger bench as may be constituted by the Chief Justice of India", said a majority bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi.

The top court gave no stay on its earlier judgement lifting a ban on the entry of women aged between 10 and 50 years into the Sabarimala temple in Kerala.

A five-judge bench, in a 3:2 decision, clubbed the matter with entry of Muslim women to mosques and Parsi women to the 'tower of silence'.

The five-member bench, headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and comprising Justices Indu Malhotra, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud and Rohinton Nariman, was hearing review petitions filed on the top court's September 28, 2018 judgement which had lifted a ban on entry of women aged between 10 and 50 years to the Sabarimala temple.

Justices Chandrachud and Nariman have written separate judgements.

In September 2018, the apex court gave a verdict allowing women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala shrine in Kerala, in an issue linked to religious sentiments in the state.

The Chief Justice's majority judgement observed it is time to evolve a judicial policy to do complete justice and for an authoritative enunciation of the Constitutional principles by a larger bench of not less than seven judges.

According to this verdict, women of all ages can visit the shrine till a larger bench decides this issue, which is actually no relief to petitioners who had moved the top court seeking a review of its previous judgement.

However, the majority verdict did not pass any decision against the apex court's September 28, 2018, decision allowing women to enter the shrine nor did it stay the previous judgement.

The shrine is slated to open from November 17, but there is no clarity on the entry of women. "That would ensure an authoritative pronouncement and also reflect the plurality of views of the judges converging into one opinion. That may also ensure consistency in approach for the posterity," said the majority judgement.

It emphasized that a larger bench may put at rest recurring issues touching upon the rights flowing from Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution (including public order, morality and health, freedom to manage religious affairs).

The majority bench observed the plurality of religions, languages, cultures and traditions, which is perceived as faith and essential practices of the religion for a particular deity by a section of the religious group, may not be so perceived (as an integral part of the religion) by another section of the same religious group for the same deity in a temple at another location.

The apex court said. "The individual right to worship in a temple cannot outweigh the rights of the section of the religious group to which one may belong, to manage its own affairs of religion."

The Chief Justice's majority judgement added, "It is our considered view that the issues arising in the pending cases regarding entry of Muslim women in Dargah/Mosque; Parsi women married to a non-Parsi in the Agyari; and including the practice of female genital mutilation in Dawoodi Bohra community may be overlapping and covered by the judgement under review."

The apex court cited the seven-judge bench, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras vs Shri Lakshmindra Tirtha Swamiar of Shirur Mutt (Shirur Mutt) holding that what are essential religious practices of a particular religious denomination should be left to be determined by the denomination itself.

It also cited the view of a five-judge bench in Dargah Committee, Ajmer vs. Syed Hussain Ali & Ors. "Carving out a role for the court in this regard to exclude what the courts determine secular practices or superstitious beliefs seem to be in apparent conflict requiring consideration by a larger bench," observed the bench.

The majority judgement recommended the larger bench may question as to whether the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules, 1965 govern the temple in question at all.

However, Justice Rohinton Nariman disagreed with this clubbing of issues, and said these are issues for future Constitution benches.

Justice Nariman observed that the original judgement in Sabarimala was based on a bona fide PIL, which specifically raised the issue of discrimination of women, denying them entry, for their entire period of puberty, which is actually a physiological feature.

Source: IANS

The post Sabarimala review to wait till larger SC bench decision appeared first on Social News XYZ.

BY SUMIT SAXENA

New Delhi, Nov 14 (SocialNews.XYZ) The Supreme Court, pronouncing the verdict Sabarimala temple review, on Thursday expanded the ambit of debate on restricting women's entry in places of worship in various religions -- Hindu, Muslim, Parsi -- and included the question on judicial scrutiny of religious practice of female genital mutilation in the Dawoodi Bohra community.

The apex court, through a majority judgement, has also kept the final decision on the Sabarimala review and writ petitions under temporary suspension till a larger bench of seven judges settles the exact role of the court in deciding whether a particular practice is essential or integral to a religion.

The apex court decision came after hearing review petitions on its September 2018 verdict, allowing women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala shrine in Kerala. The Chief Justice's majority judgement sought judicial scrutiny of religious practices through the lens of constitutional validity.

"Concededly, the debate about the constitutional validity of practices entailing into restriction of entry of women generally in the place of worship is not limited to this case (Sabarimala shrine)," observed the court.

The apex court agreed to club issues connected with constitutional validity with respect to entry of Muslim women in a dargah/mosque, entry of Parsi women married to a non-Parsi into the holy fire place of an 'Agyari'.

Taking a step further, the apex court posed question about another seminal issue pending before the court: whether a particular practice is essential to a religion or is an integral of the religion, in respect of female genital mutilation in Dawoodi Bohra community.

"It is essential to adhere to judicial discipline and propriety when more than one petition is pending on the same, similar or overlapping issues in the same court for which all cases must proceed together," observed the court, recommending a larger bench to examine the matter.

The apex court opined that prospect of the issues arising in these cases could be referred to a larger bench, and this possibility cannot be ruled out.

The top court identified seven issues emerging from these cases, which may be referred to seven-judge bench:

(a) the interplay between freedom of religion under Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution; (b) What is the sweep of expression 'public order, morality and health' occurring in Article 25(1)?

(c) delineate the contours of morality or constitutional morality in connection with religious beliefs or faith,

(d) To what extent court can enquire into the issue of particular practice in a religion;

(e) meaning of the expression 'sections of Hindus' appearing in Article 25(2)(b) of Constitution,

(f) "essential religious practices" of a religious denomination afforded constitutional protection under Article 26, and

(g) permissible extent of judicial recognition to PILs in matters calling into question religious practices of a denomination or a section thereof at the instance of persons who do not belong to such religious denomination.

"The subject review petitions as well as the writ petitions may, accordingly, remain pending until determination of the questions indicated above by a larger bench as may be constituted by the Chief Justice of India", said a majority bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi.

Source: IANS

The post SC expands issue of women’s entry into religious places appeared first on Social News XYZ.

By Sumit Saxena

New Delhi, Nov 14 (SocialNews.XYZ) The minority judgment by Supreme Court's Justices R.F. Nariman and D.Y. Chandrachud in the Sabarimala review case on Thursday cited the US Congress decision to outlaw racial discrimination in every form to justify its stand on quashing the custom barring entry of women in 10-50 age group to the temple in Kerala.

"Constitutional morality did ultimately triumph over racial discrimination," said the judges referring to the US Congress finally outlawing racial discrimination in every form, including segregation of races at schools.

The enactment of the Civil Rights Act by the US Congress in 1964 came after the US Supreme Court, in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, (1954), overruled a long-standing precedent of 1896, namely Plessy v. Ferguson, which ruled segregation of black and white students in state schools.

The judges also cited the constitutional crisis, when the Governor of Arkansas openly flouted the desegregation order mandated by the US Supreme Court. "In 1957, the Governor and officers of the Arkansas National Guard obstructed black children from entering the high school at Little Rock. Uneasy tension prevailed as the students were prevented entry," the scenario cited by judges, which they considered fits well in Sabarimala issue.

However, President Dwight D Eisenhower then dispatched federal troops to the high school, and as a result, admission of black students was effected.

Justices Nariman and Chandrachud reckoned it paved the way for social transformation, and supported a similar movement to allow women of all age group entry into the temple.

"The great democratic constitutions of the world have been promulgated, so that social transformation takes place peaceably, as the result of the application of the rule of law," said the two judges, citing implementation of the Supreme Court judgement which allowed women entry into the temple.

Both judges were on the Constitution bench that delivered the original majority judgment in September 2018, and they also dismissed the majority referring the issue to a larger Bench.

Justice Nariman, who wrote the dissent, observed the verdict of the five-judge bench was the last word on the interpretation of the Constitution. Once a Constitution Bench has laid down the law, both the legislature and the executive, were bound to comply, and this is the rule of law.

The judges observed that it is necessary to restate constitutional fundamental in the light of the sad spectacle of unarmed women between the ages of 10 and 50 being thwarted in the exercise of their fundamental right of worship at Sabarimala temple.

"Let it be said that whoever does not act in aid of our judgment, does so at his peril - so far as Ministers, both Central and State, and MPs and MLAs are concerned, they would violate their constitutional oath to uphold, preserve, and defend the Constitution," said the judges.

They criticized the shameful spectacle of political parties running after votes, or instigating or tolerating mob violence, in defiance of decrees or orders passed by the Supreme Court.

"It is, therefore, incumbent upon the executive branch of government and all MPs and MLAs to faithfully aid in carrying out decrees and orders passed by the Supreme Court when such decrees and orders command a particular form of obedience, even where they are not parties to the litigation," observed the court.

The judges highlighted the grave of gender bias in procedures of the temple. "The present case raises grave issues which relate to gender bias on account of a physiological or biological function which is common to all women," observed the court.

The judges also emphasized a bonafide public-interest litigation was entertained by the majority judgment, having regard to women's rights, in the context of women worshippers as a class, being excluded on account of such physiological/biological functions for the entirety of the period during which a woman enters puberty until menopause sets in.

Justice Indu Malhotra, who was part of the majority judgement, in her dissenting judgment, has held that entertaining public-interest litigation at the behest of persons who are not worshippers at Sabrimala temple would open the floodgates of petitions to be filed questioning the validity of religious beliefs and practices followed by other religious sects.

"We have pointed out in this judgment that the majority judgment cannot be used to undermine the religious rights of others, including, in particular, religious minorities," observed the minority judgement.

Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi's majority judgement clubbed entry of Muslim women in mosques, Parsi women to tower of silence, etc, with Sabarimala women entry issue. Justice Nariman disagreed and said the issue is for future Constitution benches.

The five-judge Constitution bench has kept the final decision on the Sabarimala temple review petitions pending until a larger seven-judge bench decides on the court's role in scrutinising matters which are essential religious practices in multiple faiths.

(Sumit Saxena can be contacted at sumit.s@ians.in)

Source: IANS

The post SC cites US anti-race law to back women entry into Sabarimala appeared first on Social News XYZ.

Kozhikode (Kerala) Nov 14 (SocialNews.XYZ) Kanakadurga, who created history by praying at the Sabarimala temple on January 2, welcomed the Supreme Court's decision on Thursday which referred the issue of entry of women into the temple and other religious places to a larger seven-judge bench, saying since the verdict does not ban entry, I will go again.

"Today's verdict is encouraging. There is no stay on the September 28 (2018) verdict which opened the temple to women of all ages. I will go again," Kanakadurga told the media at Malappuram.

Kanakadurga and Bindu Ammini, both aged below 50, prayed at the Sabarimala temple on January 2 with police security amid huge protests.

Ammini said that since Thursday's verdict doesn't stay the previous year's historic decision, women are free to go and pray at the temple.

"The Kerala government should ensure that they provide all the support to women who want to go and pray at Sabarimala," Ammini told the media here.

The two offered prayers at the temple last year that triggered a huge protest which forced them to go into hiding. Both of them could return to their homes only after the protests died down.

Source: IANS

The post Entry not banned in Sabarimala, I’ll go again: Kanakadurga appeared first on Social News XYZ.

New Delhi, Nov 14 (SocialNews.XYZ) The Vishwa Hindu Parishad on Thursday expressed hope that the larger bench of the top court will acknowledge and respect the "unique nature and traditions" of the Sabarimala temple.

VHP secretary general Milind Parande stressed that the "unique tradition of a unique temple is not gender discrimination".

He added that the Hindu religion doesn't practice gender discrimination. The Sabarimala case, Parande opined, is not related to any gender discrimination.

Parande expressed hope that the larger bench will think whether the judiciary should interfere in what many construe as the integral part of a religion.

"Out of many temples of Lord Ayyappa, only Sabarimala has the limited age-related (10 to 50 years) restrictions because of its unique nature and traditions. Lakhs of women devotees have faith in the temple tradition and protested in huge numbers in support of it. We are hopeful that justice would be delivered upholding the religious rights and pious traditions of Hindus," said the VHP leader.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court in a 3:2 verdict referred the issue of entry of women into Sabarimala temple and other religious places to a larger seven-judge bench. Justices R.F. Nariman and D.Y. Chandrachud dissented while Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Indu Malhotra and A.M. Khanwilkar who were in favour of referring the matter to a larger bench.

However, there is no stay on the September 28, 2018 judgement which lifted the ban on the entry of women aged between 10 and 50 in the temple.

Source: IANS

The post VHP sees no gender discrimination in Sabarimala appeared first on Social News XYZ.

New Delhi, Nov 14 (SocialNews.XYZ) The Supreme Court on Thursday gave no stay on its earlier judgement lifting a ban on the entry of women aged between 10 and 50 years into the Sabarimala temple in Kerala and referred the review petitions on it to a seven-member bench for further consideration.

A five-judge bench, in a 3:2 decision, clubbed the matter with entry of Muslim women to mosques and Parsi women to the tower of silence.

The five-member bench, headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and comprising Justices Indu Malhotra, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud and Rohinton Nariman, was hearing review petitions filed on the top court's September 28, 2018 judgement which had lifted a ban on entry of women aged between 10 and 50 years to the Sabarimala temple. Justices Chandrachud and Nariman have written separate judgments.

The bench, in a 3:2 split verdict, referred the Sabarimala shrine review pleas to a larger seven-judge bench, without staying its earlier order.

The bench unanimously agreed to refer the religious issues to a larger bench. In September 2018, the apex court gave a verdict allowing women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala shrine in Kerala, in an issue linked to religious sentiments in the state.

The Chief Justice's majority judgement observed it is time to evolve a judicial policy to do complete justice and for an authoritative enunciation of the Constitutional principles by a larger bench of not less than seven judges.

According to this verdict, women of all ages can visit the shrine till a larger bench decides this issue, which is actually no relief to petitioners who had moved the top court seeking a review of its previous judgement.

However, the majority verdict did not pass any decision against the apex court's September 28, 2018, decision allowing women to enter the shrine nor did it stay the previous judgement.

The shrine is slated to open from November 17, but there is no clarity on the entry of women.

"That would ensure an authoritative pronouncement and also reflect the plurality of views of the judges converging into one opinion. That may also ensure consistency in approach for the posterity," said the majority judgement.

It emphasised that a larger bench may put at rest recurring issues touching upon the rights flowing from Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution (including public order, morality and health, freedom to manage religious affairs).

The majority bench observed the plurality of religions, languages, cultures and traditions, which is perceived as faith and essential practices of the religion for a particular deity by a section of the religious group, may not be so perceived (as an integral part of the religion) by another section of the same religious group for the same deity in a temple at another location.

Contextualising the contentions, the apex court said. "The individual right to worship in a temple cannot outweigh the rights of the section of the religious group to which one may belong, to manage its own affairs of religion."

The Chief Justice's majority judgement added, "It is our considered view that the issues arising in the pending cases regarding entry of Muslim women in Dargah/Mosque; Parsi women married to a non-Parsi in the Agyari; and including the practice of female genital mutilation in Dawoodi Bohra community may be overlapping and covered by the judgement under review."

The apex court cited the seven-judge bench, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras vs Shri Lakshmindra Tirtha Swamiar of Shirur Mutt (Shirur Mutt) holding that what are essential religious practices of a particular religious denomination should be left to be determined by the denomination itself.

It also cited the view of a five-judge bench in Dargah Committee, Ajmer vs. Syed Hussain Ali & Ors. "Carving out a role for the court in this regard to exclude what the courts determine secular practices or superstitious beliefs seem to be in apparent conflict requiring consideration by a larger bench," observed the bench.

The majority judgement recommended the larger bench may question as to whether the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 govern the temple in question at all.

"Whether the aforesaid consideration will require grant of a fresh opportunity to all interested parties may also have to be considered. The subject review petitions as well as the writ petitions may, accordingly, remain pending until determination of the questions indicated above by a larger bench," said the bench.

However, Justice Rohinton Nariman, in dissent, disagreed with this clubbing of issues, and said these are issues for future Constitution benches. Justice Nariman observed that the original judgement in Sabarimala was based on a bona fide PIL, which specifically raised the issue of discrimination of women, denying them entry, for their entire period of puberty, which is actually a physiological feature.

Source: IANS

The post SC refers Sabarimala issue to larger 7-judge bench appeared first on Social News XYZ.

New Delhi, Nov 14 (SocialNews.XYZ) Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on Thursday said the Supreme Court verdict has opened a "huge door" into investigation of the "Rafale scam" and demanded a Joint Parliamentary Committee probe into the fighter jet deal.

Gandhi tweeted: "Justice Joseph of the Supreme Court has opened a huge door into investigation of the RAFALE scam. An investigation must now begin in full earnest. A Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) must also be set up to probe this scam," he posted.

The Congress party also said the BJP has been celebrating the Rafale verdict without studying the judgement properly and added that through its verdict the Supreme Court had "opened the gates for investigation" of the fighter jet deal by agencies.

"The BJP has a habit of celebrating without studying the judgements. The Supreme Court in the Rafale case today opened the gates for investigation by agencies, as it accepted that the issues of feasibility, technical specifications and price of the jets does not come under its purview under Article 32," said Congress spokesperson Randeep Singh Surjewala at a press conference.

The Congress alleged that the BJP was "misleading the nation" on the Rafale judgement and said that they should allow CBI to investigate the Rafale deal case "without any political pressure".

Earlier, the Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a review petition seeking a probe into the Rafale deal. Justice S.K. Kaul while reading the judgement said that the review petition is without merit.

The top court dismissed a plea seeking lodging of an FIR to probe the Rafale deal inked with Dassault Aviation. The court also closed contempt proceedings initiated against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and said that being an important political person, Rahul must remain more careful in future.

Contempt proceeding was initiated against Rahul Gandhi for his remark "Chowkidar Chor Hai", attributing it to the Prime Minister.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Justices S.K. Kaul and K.M. Joseph said that Rahul Gandhi, being a person holding a place of importance in the political spectrum, should have been more careful before attributing to the top court certain things which were not part of the order.

Source: IANS

The post Rafale verdict opens door for JPC probe: Rahul Gandhi appeared first on Social News XYZ.

New Delhi, Nov 14 (SocialNews.XYZ) The Congress on Thursday said the BJP has been celebrating the Rafale verdict without studying the judgement properly and added that through its verdict the Supreme Court had "opened the gates for investigation" of the fighter jet deal by agencies.

"The BJP has a habit of celebrating without studying the judgements. The Supreme Court in the Rafale case today opened the gates for investigation by agencies, as it accepted that the issues of feasibility, technical specifications and price of the jets does not come under its purview under Article 32," said Congress spokesperson Randeep Singh Surjewala.

The Congress alleged that the BJP was "misleading the nation" on the Rafale judgement and said that they should allow the CBI to investigate the Rafale deal case "without any political pressure".

Source: IANS

The post BJP celebrating but Rafale verdict opens way for probe: Cong appeared first on Social News XYZ.

New Delhi, Nov 14 (SocialNews.XYZ) The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected petitions seeking an inquiry into the Rafale fighter jet deal and warned Congress leader Rahul Gandhi to be "more careful in future" as it closed a contempt case against him linked to the issue.

The top court said it found no merit in the pleas for review of its earlier ruling in which it had given a clean chit to the government and ruled out any "roving" inquiry into the deal for procuring 36 fighter planes from French company Dassault.

The court had on May 10 reserved its order on the petitions filed by lawyer Prashant Bhushan and former Union ministers Yashwant Singh and Arun Shourie, seeking a review of its ruling of December last year that there was no occasion to doubt the decision-making process involved in the Rafale deal.

A three-member bench, headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and comprising Justices S.K. Kaul and K.M. Joseph said the court does not feel it necessary to order a "roving" inquiry or an FIR into the deal to probe the deal announced in April 2015 during Prime Minister Narendra Modi's visit to France.

The Rafale deal issue was raked up vigorously by the Congress during campaigning in the last Lok Sabha election, with its then President Rahul Gandhi alleging corruption in it and targeting the Prime Minister through his slogan "Chowkidar chor hai" (watchman is the thief).

Rahul Gandhi once even claimed that the Supreme Court too had said that "Chowkidar chor hai".

BJP MP Meenakshi Lekhi then approached the Supreme Court, saying Rahul's comments amounted to contempt of court. The apex court took a serious view of Rahul's comments attributed to it and asked him to submit an apology, which he did.

In Thursday's verdict, the top court closed contempt proceedings against Rahul Gandhi but asked him to "remain more careful in future" as he is "an important political person".

The bench said that Rahul Gandhi, being a person holding a place of importance in the political spectrum, should have been more careful before attributing to the top court certain things which were not part of the order.

Defence Minister Rajnath Singh welcomed the Supreme Court verdict in the Rafale case, saying the government stands vindicated with the dismissal of the review petition and demanded that the Congress should apologise for "misleading people".

He termed the allegations of corruption by the opposition "as nothing but an attempt to malign the clean and honest image of Prime Minister Modi and his government".

"I wholeheartedly welcome the Supreme Court's categorical dismissal of the review petitions in the Rafale case and with this pronouncement the NDA government stands vindicated. The SC verdict is also a judgement on our government's transparency in decision making," Singh tweeted.

"The people of India will not forgive the Congress for their slanderous campaign and calumny. The Congress should apologise for misleading the people," he added.

Insisting that the purchase of Rafale jets was done in a "completely transparent manner, keeping in mind the urgency to update and upgrade India's defence preparedness," the Defence Minister said, "The issues pertaining to defence preparedness and national security should never be politicised."

He said, "The allegations made by certain political parties and their leaders in the Rafale jet purchase were extremely unfortunate, unwarranted and laced with malicious intent. The verdict has rightly cautioned such politicians to be careful while making wild allegations."

Source: IANS

The post SC rules out probe in Rafale deal, warns Rahul appeared first on Social News XYZ.

New Delhi, Nov 14 (SocialNews.XYZ) Shilpa Nair, BJP leader and one of the petitioners on the issue of entry of women into the Sabrimala temple, said on Thursday she was hopeful of a larger bench going into what the "rights" of the temple deity are.

She said she would try and get a stay order on last year's verdict allowing women of all ages to enter the temple.

Nair, who is Kerala BJP State Committee member, told IANS that with the matter being referred to a seven-judge bench, it will be "looked at more carefully, and will be more researched and investigated as to what this temple stands for and what actually the deity's right is".

She tweeted: "The initial petitioners suggested gender discrimination, when there is no discrimination at Sabrimala and it is only about the deity's wishes."

Nair told IANS: "The first petitioner was Indian Young Lawyers Association which cited women discrimination, when there is no such thing. It has nothing to do with that because this temple has been following a tradition for many years, because the nature of the deity is Naishtika Brahmacharya (an intense kind of celibacy), and we ourselves are not going to that place during that age. Women enter the temple after that age and there is no discrimination."

Nair said she was hopeful the larger bench would give a decision in their favour.

"But I'm disappointed as we have not got a stay order on the September 28, 2018 verdict, because we saw a lot of turmoil happening and violence was going on. Violence was not instigated by the devotees. So I will be discussing with my lawyers on what we can do on this, whether we can get a stay order."

On the Kerala government, she said "We request the state government that let the devotees pray in peace, please don't create issues there, let them complete this mandala kalam.

"I am hopeful with the Central government... the BJP manifesto also mentions that Sabrimala's ritualistic worship and traditions will be preserved. And the way in which they have kept their word on Article 370 and Ram temple, we are hopeful with the BJP," she added.

The Supreme Court in a 3:2 verdict referred the Sabrimala review pleas to a larger bench. However, there is no stay on the September 28, 2018, judgement, which lifted the ban on the entry of women aged between 10 and 50.

Source: IANS

The post BJP leader: Will try for stay order on ’18 Sabrimala verdict appeared first on Social News XYZ.

New Delhi, Nov 14 (SocialNews.XYZ) The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) on Thursday created a row when its spokesperson Sudesh Verma raised the issue of "Azan", an Islamic prayer early in the morning played through loudspeakers, after the Supreme Court's decison on Sabarimala.

"The Government should respect the sentiments of people," said Verma.

He told IANS, "You know, there are various orders on morning call of prayers from Masjid or decibel level sound of mics." Verma insinuated when rulings on decibel levels in morning Azan cannot be implemented, so should not the women's entry into Sabarimala.

The apex court on Thursday referred the matter to a larger bench. However, it upheld earlier ruling where through women of all ages were allowed to enter the temple in Kerala.

Though Verma 'welcomed' the verdict, he took a dig at the Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid without taking his name. "There are many FIRs pending against figures of faith not being implemented. So state should act with rationality," added Verma, while speaking to IANS.

Verma, without naming Imam Bukhari was referring to allegations of assault on public servants and damage to public property in 2001. When the matter reached the court, it was contended that the proceedings against him may result in law and order situation. However, in 2016, a court said Jama Masjid's Imam Syed Ahmed Bukhari cannot take advantage as being the head of a mosque and try to browbeat courts' powers under "fictitious" and "imaginary" threat of communal tension.

The BJP has consistently taken a stated position on Sabarimala that tradition and faith should be respected and be left out of the judicial purview. But, with Verma giving the Azan twist and making a veiled reference to Imam Bukhari, the matter has been given a communal twist.

Source: IANS

The post What about Azan?: BJP creates row post Sabarimala verdict appeared first on Social News XYZ.

Thiruvananthapuram, Nov 14 (SocialNews.XYZ) With a fresh two-month-long Sabarimala season all set to open on Sunday, as many as 36 women have registered through the online booking facility of the temple.

Incidentally, this registration had taken place before the Supreme Court on Thursday referred the issue of entry of women into Sabarimala temple and other religious places to a larger seven-judge bench.

This development by the top court comes at a time when it ruled that there is no stay on the September 28, 2018 judgement which lifted the ban on the entry of women aged between 10 and 50 in the temple, which means, women of all ages can visit the shrine till a larger bench decides this issue.

Last season, 740 women in the banned age group had registered and the police after collecting the details of those who registered then reached their homes and prevailed upon them to see that they do not embark on the pilgrimage, as it could lead to tumultuous situations.

Those in the know of things revealed that the police by now have collected the details of the 36 women by checking the records of theirs.

While Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan refused to comment on the new directive of the apex court, State Minister of Devasoms (the body that looks after the affairs of all temples in Kerala) Kadakampally Surendran told the media that the state government's stand has always been to abide by the apex court's directives.

"The Congress led opposition should not try to make capital out of this new directive," said Surendran, but was silent when asked if the government would support taking women to the temple.

Last year on January 2, the state government directed the police to provide full security to two activists women in the banned age group to pray at the temple.

Former Chief Minister Oommen Chandy told the media that in the last season, it was the Vijayan government, which flared up the situation when they decided to look for activists women to be sent to the Sabarimala temple for prayers.

"When they decided to go back on their stand, things cooled down at the temple town last year. The stand of our government on the Sabarimala issue stands vindicated with the verdict that came today," said Chandy.

Source: IANS

The post 36 women register online for Sabarimala pilgrimage appeared first on Social News XYZ.

New Delhi, Nov 14 (SocialNews.XYZ) Defence Minister Rajnath Singh on Thursday welcomed the Supreme Court verdict in the Rafale case, saying with the dismissal of the review petition the NDA government stands vindicated.

In a series of tweets, the Defence Minister demanded that the Congress should apologise for "misleading the people".

He also termed the allegations of corruption by the opposition "as nothing but an attempt to malign the clean and honest image of Prime Minister Modi and his government".

"I wholeheartedly welcome the Supreme Court's categorical dismissal of the review petitions in the Rafale case and with this pronouncement the NDA Government stands vindicated. The SC verdict is also a judgement on our Government's transparency in decision making.

"The allegation of corruption in the Rafale deal was nothing but an attempt to malign the clean & honest image of Prime Minister Modi & his Government.

"The people of India will not forgive the Congress for their slanderous campaign and calumny. The Congress should apologise for misleading the people.

"The purchase of Rafale jets was done in a completely transparent manner, keeping in mind the urgency to update and upgrade India's defence preparedness.

"The issues pertaining to defence preparedness and national security should never be politicised.

"The allegations made by certain political parties and their leaders in the Rafale jet purchase were extremely unfortunate, unwarranted and laced with malicious intent.

"The verdict has rightly cautioned such politicians to be careful while making wild allegations," he said.

The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a review petition seeking a probe into the Rafale deal.

Justice S.K. Kaul while reading the judgement said that the review petition is without merit. The top court dismissed the plea seeking lodging of an FIR to probe the Rafale deal inked with Dassault Aviation.

The court also closed contempt proceedings initiated against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and said that being an important political person, he must remain more careful in future.

Source: IANS

The post Govt vindicated, Cong should apologise for Rafale: Rajnath appeared first on Social News XYZ.

New Delhi, Nov 14 (SocialNews.XYZ) BJP leader Ram Madhav on Thursday welcomed the Supreme Court judgment on Sabarimala, saying that since it has not upheld last year's order allowing entry of women of all ages into the temple, the Kerala government should "not precipitate the matter".

"Supreme Court's decisions today are important. On Sabarimala it didn't uphold smaller bench order of last year. Hence Kerala govt shouldn't precipitate the matter," Madhav, the BJP national general secretary, tweeted.

"Rafael order too on expected lines exposing the irresponsibility of several eminences," he posted.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court in a 3:2 verdict referred the issue of entry of women into Sabarimala temple and other religious places to a larger seven-judge bench.

Justices R.F. Nariman and D.Y. Chandrachud dissented while Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Indu Malhotra and A.M. Khanwilkar were in favour of referring the matter to a larger bench.

However, there is no stay on the September 28, 2018 judgement which lifted the ban on the entry of women aged between 10 and 50 in the temple.

According to this order, women of all ages can visit the shrine till a larger bench decides this issue.

Source: IANS

The post Kerala govt should not precipitate Sabarimala issue: Madhav appeared first on Social News XYZ.

Thiruvananthapuram, Nov 14 (SocialNews.XYZ) Many in Kerala expressed happiness as the Supreme Court on Thursday referred the issue of entry of women into Sabarimala temple and other religious places to a larger seven-judge bench.

But what has come as a dampener is that there is no stay on the September 28, 2018 judgement which lifted the ban on the entry of women aged between 10 and 50 in the temple, which means women of all ages can visit the shrine till a larger bench decides this issue.

This means it's going to be trouble for the Pinarayi Vijayan-led Left government as certain women's organisations have announced that they will be coming to pray at the temple when the two-month-long festival opens at 5 a.m. on Sunday.

Activist Tripthi Desai reacting to the verdict said that since there is no stay on the verdict, she will be reaching Sabarimala temple soon.

In the last season, she along with her supporters was prevented from reaching the temple following strong opposition from Sangh Parivar activists.

Reacting to the verdict, Leader of Opposition Ramesh Chennithala said this is a setback to the Left government as there is going to be a review.

"While this ruling gives hope to the believers that the new larger bench will take into account the issue of faith. For the Kerala government this is a setback," said Chennithala.

The Sabarimala temple 'tantri', Kanteraru Rajeevan expressed hope and happiness that this new directive gives strength to the Ayyappa believers.

"Thanks to Lord Ayyappa for this new directive and we will now wait for the new bench to look into everything," said Rajeevan.

But Rahul Eshawaran, an ardent devotee of Lord Ayyappa who hails from the tantric family of Sabarimala said this is a partial victory for all of us.

"What has to be noted is, today's directive also states that when the Sabarimala issues is taken up it will be looking into other religions also," said Eashwar and added that with the new season opening up, they will all be proceeding to the temple town to see that traditions are not broken.

The Pandalam Royal Family, which has an emotional bind with the Sabarimala temple as its they who are in possession of the temple jewellery also expressed happiness with the verdict.

"The very fact that there is going to be larger bench which will be looking into it is a positive thing. This re-look is certainly a huge relief for the believers," said Sreekumar Varma, spokesperson of the royal family.

Former State BJP president Kummanem Rajasekheran said this verdict is a positive step.

Earlier in the day, Supreme Court Justices R.F. Nariman and D.Y. Chandrachud dissented while Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Indu Malhotra and A.M. Khanwilkar were in favour of referring the matter to a larger bench.

The Kerala Police has issued a warning to all that none should make any statements that will cause any dent to the peace in the state based on the verdict and if anyone does it, then such people will be arrested and put behind bars.

Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan is yet to make any comment and now with earlier verdict not getting stayed, it's certainly going to be a headache for him and his government, as scenes that occurred last season is likely to return this time, with the activists getting ready to pray at the temple and those opposed to it announcing they will not allow the temple tradition to be broken.

Source: IANS

The post Ayyappa devotees welcome SC referring Sabarimala to larger bench appeared first on Social News XYZ.

New Delhi, Nov 14 (SocialNews.XYZ) The Supreme Court on Thursday referred the issue of entry of women into Sabarimala temple and other religious places to a larger seven-judge bench.

The Supreme Court in a 3:2 verdict referred the Sabarimala issue to a larger bench. However, there is no stay on the September 28, 2018 judgement which lifted the ban on the entry of women aged between 10 and 50 in the temple.

According to this order, women of all ages can visit the shrine till a larger bench decides this issue.

Source: IANS

The post SC refers Sabarimala verdict to larger 7-judge bench appeared first on Social News XYZ.

New Delhi, Nov 14 (SocialNews.XYZ) The Supreme Court on Thursday will pronounce judgement on the Rafale deal, which was made an election issue by the Opposition citing corruption. The apex court had reserved the verdict on the deal in May this year.

Attorney General (AG) K.K. Venugopal representing the Centre argued before a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi that there was no "corruption" in the Rafale deal and that the government is bound to maintain secrecy on pricing, as per Inter-Government Agreement (IGA) signed between India and France. The AG had insisted that the world over, defence deals are not examined in a court of law.

Referring to the Rafale deal as a question of national security, the AG had told a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, "We have signed an IGA, which we are obliged to follow. Rafale is not for ornamentation. It is essential for protection of each and every one of us....nowhere in the world such matters go before the court."

The AG also told the court that in accordance with Article 10 of the IGA, the pricing in the deal cannot be disclosed. "In this matter, the secrecy clause of the inter-governmental agreement between India and France, pertains to defence deals and not to the award of contract for construction of flyover or dams...," said the AG, insisting on the dismissal of review petitions.

Former Union ministers, Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie, and activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan, who have filed the review petitions, contended before the top court that it should set aside December 14, 2018, verdict, which dismissed their plea for criminal investigation into the Rafale deal. Later, the apex court reserved verdict on a batch of petitions seeking review of its December 14 judgement.

Bhushan told the various aspects -- alleged suppression of material facts -- have been hidden from the court, and an FIR should be registered to undertake criminal investigations. He also pointed out a three-member Indian Negotiation Team (INT) had objected to the parallel negotiations undertaken by the PMO, and as a consequence, allegedly the deal became expensive.

The AG objected to the review petition and said the basic grounds for seeking review of the December verdict were similar to the main petition, which was not allowed by the apex court. The top law officer also rubbished the allegation of the petitioners that the Centre played a fraud on the court regarding the information on the deal. "The petitioners are seeking review on the base of stolen documents...they committed theft by accessing incomplete file notings of the government departments," said the AG.

Bhushan had argued that eight critical clauses, including the one on anti-corruption, were dropped on the deal, and also ignored the objection of three experts on pricing of the aircraft deal. "The Centre should place the entire file of the negotiations team before the court...for the deal to go through. The Centre also breached the ceiling price. The French government issued a letter of comfort, which was not of any comfort", argued Bhushan before the court.

Shourie, who briefly argued, informed the court that it has been misled, and although the government has given all the documents regarding the deal to CAG, "why can't they share them with the court?" he asked.

Shourie also shared a document published on the Ministry of Home Affairs' website which mandates the government to share information on defence deals. The AG argued that the document is old, and in accordance with IGA, which was signed in September 2016, the government has to oblige its terms regarding secrecy.

The AG also informed the court that the Rafale deal has come to a fruition stage after many years, and if at all any delay is caused, developing a new Request for Proposal (RFP) and then floating the same; it will take another 5 years.

Bhushan slammed the government that in an unprecedented step, it had redacted the CAG report. "We are not in favour of the cancellation of the contract, but the criminal investigation should be made by CBI into the deal... Ultimately, the deal went ahead without any guarantee, no bank guarantee or sovereign guarantee," Bhushan vehemently argued.

The court fired a volley of queries at the AG regarding the deal. It first queried AG on the aspect of registration of the FIR. "There should be a prima facie cognizable offence", the AG replied.

The court then raised another query on the aspect of transfer of technology and the advantages of the same, which was an integral component of the deal under negotiation during the UPA. "Who is to decide that? Will this court decide?" asked the AG. Then, the court asked about the sovereign guarantee. The AG cited precedents with Russia and the US, where bank guarantee was waived for defence deals.

Finally, the court asked the AG's opinion on the dissent of three domain experts. "They examined the whole aspect. The concerns raised by the three members were referred to Defence Acquisition Committee....Eventually, they agreed," replied AG. At the end of the hearing, the AG said he can produce the documents related to the consent of the officials before the court.

Source: IANS

The post Now, Rafale judgement awaited appeared first on Social News XYZ.

Thiruvananthapuram, Nov 14 (SocialNews.XYZ) The Travancore Devasom Board (TDB) has said they will abide by the the Supreme Court verdict when it is delivered on Thursday on a batch of petitions seeking re-examination of its decision to allow entry of women of all age group to the famed Sabarimala temple.

TDB is the body that looks after the administration of most temples in South Kerala districts, including Sabarimala.

At present, TDB is headed by former CPI-M legislator A. Padmakumar.

"The final verdict will come tomorrow. We are duty bound to abide by the court's ruling," Padmakumar told the media persons.

"I have full faith in the SC and whatever is the verdict, both the TDB and the government will accept it," said Padmakumar, whose three-year-term will end tomorrow.

It was on September 28 last year that the apex court allowed women of all ages to enter the temple and following that it was a free for all between right-wing forces which stood guard and chased away women in the age group of 10 and 50, with the Kerala Police trying their best to see that the verdict was adhered to in letter and spirit.

The top court is now expected to give its final verdict after 64 review petitions have been filed asking the apex court to ensure that traditions and culture of the famed temple is protected.

Meanwhile State Minister of Devasoms (the body that looks after all temples in Kerala) Kadakampally Surendran said let the verdict come.

State BJP spokesperson M.T. Ramesh said that he expects a verdict which will favour the believers.

"The BJP is expecting a positive verdict that will protect the temple tradition and culture. Should it be otherwise, other constitutional ways would be looked into," said Ramesh.

Incidentally, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, while on his campaign at the recent Lok Sabha polls in the state, had assured that the Centre would make efforts to provide constitutional protection for the state's faiths and beliefs.

Besides its poll manifesto, BJP had made a mention of the Sabarimala controversy, saying it would "endeavour to secure constitutional protection on issues related to faith and belief".

The Congress had time and again asked the BJP government to see that appropriate amendments are done to protect faith and tradition.

Meanwhile, all arrangements are in place for the two-month-long festival season of the famed Sabarimala Ayyappa temple in Kerala that opens for pilgrims on Sunday.

The Kerala Police has made the routine security arrangements by posting around 2500 police officials in and around the temple complex, which has been the practice.

Source: IANS

The post Will abide by the Supreme Court verdict: Devasom chief appeared first on Social News XYZ.

New Delhi, Nov 14 (SocialNews.XYZ) The Supreme Court will on Thursday pronounce judgement on the review petitions filed on the entry of women of all age groups into the Sabarimala temple.

A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi in February concluded the arguments and reserved the judgement on the batch of petitions seeking review of the apex court verdict in 2018, which allowed the entry of women of all ages into the Sabarimala temple.

It is one of the most important judgements, which is expected to be pronounced before the Chief Justice's term ends this month.

On September 28, 2018, the top court opened the gates of the Sabarimala Temple in Kerala dedicated to Lord Ayyappa to the women in the age group of 10-50, saying it was violative of their fundamental rights and constitutional guarantees.

A Constitution bench, headed by the then CJI Dipak Misra, gave a 4:1 verdict claiming the ban led to gender discrimination. The pathbreaking judgment has left the temple tantris (priests) and those associated with it by tradition disappointed.

Many leaders and religious leaders expressed disagreement with the court's observation and opined that it may bring an adverse impact on society. It also has led to massive protests in Kerala, which resulted in a political slugfest between then ruling CPI-M and the BJP.

On October 8, multiple petitions were filed in the Supreme Court to seek review of its verdict to lift a ban on entry of women in the 10-50 age group into the temple, contending that religious practices cannot be "tested on the basis of rationality".

As many as 64 petitions, which include review pleas and transfer pleas, have been filed in the apex court challenging its decision on the entry of women into the Sabarimala temple. On the last day of the hearing, in what appeared to unprecedented, the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB), which handles management of Sabarimala temple in Kerala, reversed its stand in the top court by expressing its support to the 2018 court verdict, which had allowed women of all age groups to enter the shrine.

The board submitted in the court that discrimination on the grounds of biological attributes was not correct.

The bench had heard submissions on behalf of all parties, including the Kerala government, Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB), Nair Service Society and others. The court had then said it would pronounce its order on whether to review the judgment or not.

The Kerala government had expressed its support for the Supreme Court ruling in 2018 and urged the top court to not consider the petitions seeking the review of the judgement.

The Nair Service Society had moved the court opposing the court's verdict in 2018, and the Kerala government, TDB and the two women who had entered the shrine had expressed their opposition these review petitions.

Senior advocate K. Parasaran, counsel for the Nair Service Society, had argued before a five-judge bench and urged the court to set aside its earlier verdict.

Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, counsel for TDB, submitted before the court that Article 25 (1) equally entitles all persons to practise one's religion. "Women cannot be barred on biological attributes. In the Constitution, equality is the dominant theme," said Dwivedi while voicing board's opinion that people should accept the top court verdict.

The board had earlier consistently opposed the entry of women into Lord Ayyapa shrine at Sabarimala, and its U-turn on the matter has been brought on record before the court.

In light of these circumstances, it will be interesting to see the outcome of these arguments in the Supreme Court judgement. The TDB had also opposed a PIL by the Indian Young Lawyers Association. The board said the celibate character of Lord Ayyappa at Sabarimala temple was a unique religious feature, and it is protected under the Constitution.

Source: IANS

The post Sabarimala: When gender equality clashed against religious practice appeared first on Social News XYZ.