Best printers for Home

Best Mixer Grinder

Best wired Earphones

Best 43 Inch TV in India

Best Wi Fi Routers

Best Home Theatre in India

Smart Watch under 5000

Best Laptops for Education

Best Laptop for Students

<ul><li>The 5-judge constitutional bench headed by Chief Justice <keyword id="6355251" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="dipak-misra">Dipak Misra</keyword> ruled that women can now enter <keyword id="28504" type="CITY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Kerala">Kerala</keyword>’s <keyword id="6384180" type="LOCATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="sabarimala">Sabarimala</keyword> temple, irrespective of their age.</li><li>The verdict stated that the tradition violated the right of Hindu women to practice their religion.</li><li>The bench also said, the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 put patriarchy in religion above the right to pray, which is stated in Article 25 of the Indian constitution. </li></ul>In another landmark verdict this week, the <keyword id="75952" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court-of-India">Supreme Court of India</keyword> ended the centuries-old tradition of women not being able to enter Kerala’s most well-known temple, the Sabarimala temple, if they were between the ages of 10 to 50. Petitioners had challenged the Kerala High Court’s decision that only the tantri or priest had the power to decide on traditions. The <a href="https://indianexpress.com/article/india/sabarimala-verdict-live-updates-supreme-court-women-temples-kerala-5377598/?#liveblogstart">five-judge Constitutional bench</a> that included Chief Justice Dipak Misra, R F Nariman, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and <keyword id="854247" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Indu-Malhotra">Indu Malhotra</keyword>, ruled that the tradition enforced patriarchy in religion and could not be allowed to trump women’s right to pray. Not a unanimous decision Justice Indu Malhotra was the only judge on the bend to vote against the petition. She stated that rational arguments cannot be applied to matters of religion and that religious practices are more complex than the right to equality. She added that Article 25 of the Indian constitution already protects the Sabarimala shrine and its deity. While Article 14 stresses the right of all individuals to be equal in the eye of the law, constitutional morality also accounts for everyone being allowed to practise their beliefs. Even if those beliefs are biased towards one gender. That being said, Justice Nariman expressed that the rule actually violates Article 25 by not extending the freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion to women. The management of the Sabarimala temple, the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) has already announced that they will be filing to review the petition. The president of TDB, A Padmakumar, stated that he would be enlisting the help of other religious heads to push this forward. The custodians of the temple, the Pandalam royal family, also expressed their disappointment in the verdict.

Supreme Court of India lifts ban, women of all ages can now enter Sabarimala temple

<ul><li>The <keyword id="6354977" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court">Supreme Court</keyword> is reviewing the entry of women of all ages into the temple.</li><li>The Supreme Court today moved the matter to a seven member bench, from the current five bench judgement.</li><li>Before the last SC verdict women of menstruating age were not allowed to enter the temple because the deity is believed to celibate. </li></ul>The controversial <keyword id="498405" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Sabarimala-case">Sabarimala case</keyword> shows no signs of dying down. The Supreme Court today moved the matter to a seven member bench, from the current five bench judgment. The petitions that were filed to review its earlier judgment are kept pending. The Court needs time to review the matter, said a lawyer who was speaking outside the Supreme Court. 
 <div type="image" title="Sabrimal-temp" msid="72050713" hostid="261"></div>



 The top court is reviewing the entry of women of all ages into the temple. Before the last SC verdict women of menstruating age were not allowed to enter the temple because the deity is believed to celibate. Today's appeal is expected to settle the debate once and for all. The Supreme Court with a 5-judge bench led by <keyword id="548459" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Chief-Justice-Ranjan-Gogoi">Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi</keyword> was reviewing 64 petitions which had challenged its earlier verdict. Last year, in a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court had allowed menstruating women between the age group of 10-50 to enter the temple. The earlier verdict was passed by a 5-judge bench which included the then Chief Justice Dipak Misra, and Justices A. M. Khanwilkar, R. F. Nariman, Indu Malhotra and D. Y. Chandrachud. It wasn’t a unanimous judgment with the only woman on the panel Justice Indu Malhotra opposing the decision where she had said that the rational arguments cannot be applied to matters of religion and that religious practices are more complex than the right to equality. Then, the body which manages the <keyword id="453325" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="sabarimala-temple">Sabarimala temple</keyword> – the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) and the custodians of the temple, the Pandalam royal family had expressed its disappointment with the verdict. Since then, the temple has seen multiple protests from both sides of the party – the temple authorities have challenged the court’s verdict, while women have on different occasions <a href="https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/two-women-below-50-enter-keralas-sabarimala-temple-police-sources-1971204">sneaked into</a> the temple and were escorted by cops. The Mandala season is here From Wednesday, the security at Sabarimala temple, which opens its doors on Sunday for devotees for the two-month long festival, has been tightened before the verdict. According to IANS, the police have classified the two month long season ⁠— from November to January ⁠— into four segments with the first two weeks starting on November 15 to November 29 and in all 2,551 police personnel would be posted in and around the temple complex.

Supreme Court moves Sabarimala case to a 7-judge bench

<ul><li>An in-house committee said there was no substance in the allegations. </li><li>Last month, allegations of sexual harassment were made by a former woman employee of the <keyword id="6354977" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court">Supreme Court</keyword>.</li><li>A report submitted by the committee is “not liable to be made public."</li></ul> <keyword id="45053" type="POSITION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Chief-Justice-of-India">Chief Justice of India</keyword> <keyword id="245445" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Ranjan-Gogoi">Ranjan Gogoi</keyword> has been cleared of the allegations of sexual harassment brought forward last month by a former woman employee of the Supreme Court. An in-house committee, which had been set up to probe into the matter, reportedly said there was no substance in the allegations. The committee was headed by Justice SA Bobde, and Justices Indira Banerjee and Indu Malhotra. A report submitted by the committee is “not liable to be made public,” LiveLaw reported citing a statement by the court. In April, the Supreme Court had announced that a woman staffer had accused the chief justice of sexual harassment and announced the formation of a judicial panel. Gogoi had rejected all the charges. Last week, the complainant reportedly <a href="https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/breaking-in-house-committee-finds-no-substance-in-allegations-against-cji-report-not-liable-to-be-made-public-144825">withdr</a>ew from the probe, objecting to the committee saying she felt she “was not likely to get justice from this committee. She also cited the lack of a lawyer or a support person and felt "intimidated and nervous in the presence of three Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court,” she was quoted as saying in media <a href="https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/breaking-woman-who-alleged-sexual-harassment-by-cji-decides-not-to-participate-in-in-house-enquiry-144658">reports.</a> Many lawyers have also raised concerns about the findings. Writing in <a href="https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/a-miscarriage-of-justice/article27051604.ece/amp/?__twitter_impression=true" data-type="tilCustomLink">the Hindu</a>, Dushyant Dave, a senior lawyer and the former President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, says, "Can [the complainant] and her family get justice at all at the hands of the judiciary, considering the respondents would be the CJI and the Supreme Court? Only time will tell. But certainly for the present, the picture is dark for them."

Judicial panel clears Chief Justice of India from sexual harassment charges

<keyword id="860096" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Section-497">Section 497</keyword> of the <keyword id="75223" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Indian-Penal-Code">Indian Penal Code</keyword> has become a hot topic following an important ruling by the Supreme Court which scrapped this law altogether. Here we discuss in length about this law and what it implied so far. Section 497 of the India Penal Code deals with adultery. The recent judgment by the Supreme Court overturned there earlier rulings that upheld that the said law was constitutional. As per the Supreme Court’s recent decision, Section 497 of IPC goes against the constitution of India and hence need to be scrapped altogether. The bench that pronounced the recent judgment consisted of five judges including the Chief Justice <keyword id="6355251" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="dipak-misra">Dipak Misra</keyword>, and Justices R F Nariman, A M Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra. Overview of Section 497 of IPC Section 497 of IPC says it is a punishable offense for a man to have sexual intercourse with a married woman without the consent of her husband. The man committing such an offense can be imprisoned for five years or more and can also be asked to pay a fine. Understanding ‘adultery’ in the legal context The dictionary meaning of the term adultery reads thus, "adultery is a voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not their spouse". The petitioners wish to address a few problems connected to Section 497 of IPC as explained hereunder. One big concern regarding this law is that it does not appear to be gender-neutral. In case of any act of adultery committed, the law calls for punishing the man but not the woman involved. Section 497 does not enable a woman to file a complaint against her husband when he has had sexual intercourse with another woman. A number of people call this an anti-woman law since the law seems to reduce a woman as a mere object. As per what the said law implies, a man does not need the consent of the woman to have sexual intercourse with her. The law only says, the said act will not be a crime if the woman’s husband agrees for the act. How the Supreme Court interpreted Section 497 of IPC The judges have stated recently that the Section 497 seems outdated. In fact, it appears to violate the Articles 14 and 21 of the IPC. While commenting on the said law, the justices remarked, "Adultery can be ground for civil issues including dissolution of marriage but it cannot be a criminal offence." The bench also added further that Section 497 looked 'unconstitutional' as it violates the right to equality. There are no reasons whatsoever to continue this law that does not serve the intended purpose. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court upheld that adultery can be a valid ground for applying for divorce. Talking at length about the law and the reasons for scrapping the law, Justice DY Chandrachud commented that Section 497 deprives women of their dignity. CJI Misra said, "Women must be treated with equality with men. Any discrimination shall invite wrath of Constitution. A woman can't be asked to think the way society desires."

You Searched For "Indu Malhotra" and got 4 results

Supreme Court of India lifts ban, women of all ages can now enter Sabarimala temple

Prabhjote Gill

Supreme Court moves Sabarimala case to a 7-judge bench

Sanchita Dash

Judicial panel clears Chief Justice of India from sexual harassment charges

Rimin Dutt

What is Section 497 IPC

BI India Bureau

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides