Religion can’t be debated over matter of conscience: Supreme Court in Sabarimala reference

Religion can’t be debated over matter of conscience: Supreme Court in Sabarimala reference

The court was hearing the submissions of Senior Advocate Indira Jaising on constitutional questions arising out of petitions seeking review of the September 28, 2018, judgment striking down restrictions on entry of women into the Sabarimala temple.

Sabarimala Reference: ‘Constitution is the grundnorm. Everything else must yield’, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising argues as Respondents begin their submissions

Senior Advocate Indira Jaising opened arguments for Respondents by placing exclusion at the heart of her submissions and arguing that the Constitution, as the grundnorm, admits of no higher norm, and certainly not one built on notions of pollution and defilement.

Supreme Court questions non-believers’ right to enter Sabarimala temple

“Who is claiming this right? Is a devotee claiming the right or a non-devotee at whose instance? A person who has nothing to do with this temple is somewhere in North India. This temple is in South India.”

Sabarimala Debate Intensifies As Groups Call For Greater Religious Autonomy

The Sabarimala case has become a significant focal point in the ongoing discourse regarding religious practices and interpretations in India. The Supreme Court of India delivered a ruling in 1991, which has been a point of contention amongst various groups. This ruling addressed the entry of women into the Sabarimala temple, a significant site for Hindu pilgrims, which is dedicated to Lord Ayyappa. Over the years, debates surrounding this ruling…