Live
- PM Modi visits Advani's residence to wish him on birthday, shares special moment
- Sun-Dried Cotton to Be Taken to CCI Purchase Centers, Avoid Middlemen - Collector
- Survey Process Requires Public Cooperation - Collector Badavath Santosh
- Distribution of Maize Seeds to Farmers at Agricultural Research Center
- Education with Human Values Must be Provided to Students - Telangana State Higher Education Council Chairman Prof. V. Balakista Reddy
- Review on Employment Guarantee Works and Nursery Management
- Nepal's disasters cause huge loss in late September
- Congress not finished but BJP survives on backs of Nitish, Chandrababu: Nana Patole
- Calcutta High Court advises Bengal government to fix guidelines for demonstration sites
- 25 per cent of Indians affected by Varicose Veins, say health experts
Sabarimala Verdict: Things you should know about the SC's ruling
After delivering the historic verdict in the Ayodhya land dispute case, CJI Ranjan Gogoi is set to pronounce verdict on the Sabarimala temple case at 10.30 AM today, November 14.
The controversial verdict of allowing women into the premises of Sabarimala's Ayyappa temple will be pronounced today by the Supreme Court. The bench will consist of the Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gagoi, Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice AM Khanwilkar. The important ruling is being pronounced ahead of CJI Ranjan Gogoi's retirement on November 17.
Here's what you should know about the ruling ahead of the verdict:
With a majority verdict of 4:1, the apex court in September 2018 lifted the ban preventing women devotees between the age of 10 and 50 from entering the Ayyappa shrine in Kerala. It deemed that the centuries-old religious practice is illegal and unconstitutional.
The SC is scheduled to pronounce its verdict on a batch of petitions seeking re-examination of its decision to allow entry of women of all age groupS into the temple. Judgment will be delivered on 65 petitions which include 56 review petitions, four fresh writ petitions and five transfer pleas which were filed after the verdict sparked violent protests in Kerala.
The five-judge constitution bench with Justices RF Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra, reserved its decision on February 6 after hearing various parties, including those seeking re-consideration of the September judgement. The previous ruling stated that banning women from entering the temple is not an essential part of Hinduism. The ruling further stated that biological factors aren't legitimate when it comes to devotion, there cannot be any ias based on gender. It added further, that the dualist approach against women is degrading to them.
This ruling has been sent for review to the SC, because the devotees hadn't accepted the order. The counter argument stated that the Supreme Court cannot force its view on the devotees, and that the ruling distrubs the way of life in an otherwise peaceful Kerala. Further, the devotees in support of the review said the restrictions are in place due to Lord Ayyappa's celibacy and that it is not any form on untouchability. The statement further added that religion cannot be based on rationality.
Here's a timeline of events in the Sabarimala temple case:
April 1991: Kerala HC uploads restriction on women's entry
August 2006: PIL filed in SC seeking entry of female devotees
October 2017: Supreme Court refers the case to constitution bench
September 2018: SC ends centuries-old ban on women entry
October 2019: SC declines to pass stay order, admits review pleas
October 17, 2018: Shrine reopens for first time after SC verdict
October 17, 2018: Devotees stop women, attack journalists
November 19, 2018: Devaswom board seeks more time to implement order
January 18, 2019: Kerala govt tells SC that 51 women entered the shrine
February 6,2019: SC reserves verdict on 65 pleas challenging women's entry
Today's verdict will be the deciding factor in the case that has seen an increase in difference of opinions. Around 2,500 policemen and women will be posted in and around the temple complex for two weeks, bearing in mind the sensitivity of the issue.
