While Justice Nariman invoked constitutional morality, Devaswom Board counsel AM Singhvi said its application to religious cases would open a Pandora’s box. Singhvi also argued that Ayyapa devotees constituted a separate religious denomination within the Hindu religion.
Lawyers, members of the civil society, sex workers, queer rights activist, labour rights activists and child rights activists have criticised the Bill on grounds of increasing abuse of consenting adult sex workers, migrating labourers, targeting of transgender persons and the over-legislation resulting from the Bill’s scope and approach towards consensual sex work.
The former woman judge pleaded that her resignation — given four years back in the wake of “unbearable circumstances” — amounted to an act of constructive termination. She claims that she was forced to put in her papers as a consequence of her being unlawfully and in a mala fide manner transferred to a conflict area for not bowing to the immoral demands of a Madhya Pradesh High Court judge.
The Collegium resolution states that it had ‘carefully considered the observations made by the Law Minister in his letters’ sent to the CJI in April 2018 to reconsider its recommendation for elevation, stating that ‘nothing adverse regarding suitability of KM Joseph was pointed out in the aforementioned letters’.
The legislation lays down that the state shall ‘act within the Diaspora to strengthen the affinity between the state and members of the Jewish people’ and ‘views the development of Jewish settlement as a national value and will act to encourage and promote its establishment and consolidation’.
Jaising submitted that the ban on women's entry inside the temple is based upon sex alone, and the discrimination is solely based off physiological factors. She further argued that menstruating women being categorised as a different class is unconstitutional as it lacks constitutional morality.
Jaising emphasises on harmonious interpretation of constitutional provisions, that is, Articles 14, 15, 25 and 26 of the Constitution and stated that the right to manage the affairs in the matter of religion does not encompass the right to ban entry inside a temple.
The CJI bench highlighted the threat posed by ‘frenzied mobs across the country instigated by intolerance and misinformed by circulation of fake news and false stories’, while chastising aggravating phenomena such as ‘bystander apathy, numbness of the mute spectators of the scene of the crime, inertia of the law enforcing machinery to prevent such crimes … and grandstanding of the incident by the perpetrators of the crimes including in the social media’.