Union Govt Urges SC to Uphold Restriction on Menstruating Women From Entering Sabarimala Temple

New Delhi: Reasoning that the issue of restricting women of menstruating age from entering into Kerala’s Sabarimala temple falls entirely within the domain of religious faith and denominational autonomy and lies beyond the scope of judicial review, the Union government on Monday (April 6) urged the Supreme Court to uphold the restriction, reported Hindustan Times.

In September 2018, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court had ruled that not allowing women in their “menstruating years” into the Sabarimala is ultra vires the constitution, and all women should be allowed to enter the temple.

On April 4 this year, the Supreme Court had notified the constitution of the nine-judge bench to hear the long-pending Sabarimala review. The bench will comprise Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, and justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ashanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, AG Masih, R Mahadevan, Prasanna B Varale and Joymalya Bagchi.

The Union government, in detailed written submissions, has supported the review petitions against the 2018 judgment. It has reasoned that questions of who may enter a place of worship are not facets of gender discrimination but are rooted in religious practice, belief and the specific character of the deity, reported Hindustan Times.

Filed through solicitor general Tushar Mehta, the submissions caution the bench against adopting standards of review that assess religious practices on grounds such as “rationality,” “modernity,” or “scientific defensibility.”

Union govt takes stand against judgement that decriminalised adultery

In another submission, the Union government has urged the top court to declare that the five-judge bench judgment in Joseph Shine Vs Union of India (2018), which struck down the offence of adultery, “is not good law,” reported Hindustan Times.

The Union government also urged the present nine-judge bench of the top court to declare that the law and reasoning in the 2018 Joseph Shine judgment are not good law. The government said in its reasoning that the ruling on adultery rests on an overbroad and subjective application of “constitutional morality”, which the Union government termed “a judicially evolved, vague and indeterminate concept.”

The adultery judgment was delivered by a bench comprising then CJI Dipak Misra and justices RF Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.