New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has been on a roll over the past few weeks, going back and changing archaic laws in an apparent bid to be more progressive. After decriminalising section 377 and adultery, the Apex Court gave entry to women between the ages of 10 to 50 into the Sabarimala temple which, for ages, was closed to them.
While the verdict is still fresh in the minds of the public and there are some who oppose it, one would not have expected the only female judge on the Sabarimala bench to be one among them.
Justice Indu Malhotra, went against the majority verdict as she was of the opinion that it is not right for menstruating women between the ages of 10 and 50 should enter the temple. According to her, courts cannot interfere in such matters “unless an aggrieved person from the concerned section or religion” approaches them.
Justice Malhotra, who was only recently appointed to the Supreme Court, opined that the court should not interfere with issues pertaining to religious sentiments. She considered it right to go against the majority as, unlike in the cases of triple talaq and section 377, none of the women who perform the trek to the temple approached the court as petitioners. She also said that Lord Ayyappa of Sabarimala was “protected by Article 25 of the Constitution of India” as “India has diverse religious practices and constitutional morality would allow anyone to profess and practice a religion she/he believes in and it is not for the court to interfere in such religious practices, even if it may appear discriminatory”.
In her ruling, she also stated that “a balance needs to be struck between religious beliefs on one hand and cherished principles of non-discrimination and equality laid down by Constitution on the other.”
