Law and Religion

Law and Religion

Deity as juristic entity only for suing and being sued: Jaising

Senior advocate Jaising presented that rights of the deity are restricted for to matters, limited to maintenance of properties and the taxation related issues. Jaising held that this principle has been consistently maintained in the Indian legal jurisprudence since the time of Privy Council and the Judicial Committee decisions, so must apply in Sabarimala as well, and shouldn’t infringe upon fundamental rights of women as citizens.

August 2,2018

Law and Religion

The ‘celibacy vs menstruation’ non-debate

Whether it is arbitrariness, lack of parity in verification requirements, placing the onus of men’s celibacy on women, treating men as a class of devotees whose interests require greater protection —each and every one of these conclusions requires the ban to be struck down as blatantly unconstitutional.

July 28,2018

Law and Religion

Sabarimala, Day 5: Gods over individuals?

Advoates Giri and Sai Deepak argued that the deity had rights under Articles 21 and 25(1), and stated that the will of the deity to remain a ‘brahmachari’ needs to be respected.

July 26,2018

Law and Religion

To codify or not to codify

The Constitution empowers both the legislature and the judiciary to have regulating powers over the personal laws, to bring them up to speed with the times. While it is with great dexterity that such powers should be exercised, it is still a better option than wiping out their existence and imposing a Uniform Civil Code, which comes too close to violation of Article 25, for comfort.

July 26,2018

Case update

Sabarimala case: Unconstitutional assumptions

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.

July 24,2018

Law and Religion

‘A form of untouchability in Sabarimala’

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.

July 18,2018

Case update

Sabarimala: Read Indira Jaising's written submissions

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.

July 17,2018

Scroll Up