Sabarimala: Article 32 proceedings wrong, hold time-bound trial to ascertain facts, AM Singhvi [Day 4]

#Sabarimala: Hearing resumes in Supreme Court. pic.twitter.com/2UXQHIHbrl

— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) July 24, 2018

#Sabarimala: @DrAMSinghvi making submissions for Travancore Devaswom Board.

— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) July 24, 2018

#Sabarimala: Justice Rohinton Nariman referring to the stand of Devaswom Board in High Court of allowing women for five days in a month.

“The deity cannot suddenly disappear for five days only to reappear later”, Nariman.

— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) July 24, 2018

#Sabarimala: Justice Nariman asks AM Singhvi how the Travancore Devswom Board how it can justify its contradictory stance.

— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) July 24, 2018

#Sabarimala: “The test is not how and why women are excluded; The test is whether those who believe in Ayyappa denomination has practiced this for a considerable time in history. This is subject however to whether it is barbaric and illegal”, submits @DrAMSinghvi

— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) July 24, 2018

#Sabarimala: “The object is not to exclude women but due to physiological reasons they get excluded. Anybody with same physiological reasons will be exlcuded “, AM Singhvi.

— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) July 24, 2018

#Sabarimala: After 1950s, it is Constitutional ethos which is the benchmark for liberty, equality, DY Chandrachud J.

— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) July 24, 2018

#Sabarimala: The question is whether we can apply Constitutional morality test as stated by Amicus Ramachandran. If yes then it straight away blocks your case, Rohinton Nariman J. to @DrAMSinghvi

— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) July 24, 2018

#Sabarimala: Contemporary morality is varied and keeps changing, Nariman. J.

— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) July 24, 2018

#Sabarimala: Singhvi citing the example of why women are not allowed inside mosque.

“There are twenty other religions with twenty other practices”, says AM Singhvi.

— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) July 24, 2018

#Sabarimala: CJI Dipak Misra asks why barring entry of women into temple is “essential”.

“It must have some kind of essential entrenchment in the Constitution”, CJI Dipak Misra.

— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) July 24, 2018

#Sabarimala: Rohinton Nariman J. once again bringing up Devaswom Board’s stand in High Court.

” Forget about my stand. Even State of Kerala has changed its stance three times”, says Singhvi.

— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) July 24, 2018

#Sabarimala: Rohinton Nariman J. says reason for restriction is ladies cannot observe Vratam for 41 days because they menstruate.

— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) July 24, 2018

#Sabarimala: “Nowhere is any of the affidavits is it said that women are kept out because they are impure when they menstruate”, Rohinton Nariman J .

— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) July 24, 2018

#Sabarimala: Singhvi now arguing on powers of Tantri to decide matters relating to the temple.

— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) July 24, 2018

#Sabarimala: AM Singhvi relying on the Kerala High Court judgment from 1990s which had dismissed a similar petition.

— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) July 24, 2018

#Sabarimala: Bench, particularly Rohinton Nariman and DY Chandrachud JJ., quizzing Singhvi on various assertions in the Kerala High Court judgment.

— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) July 24, 2018

#Sabarimala: “This judgment does not establish Sabarimala is a denominational temple”, CJI Dipak Misra.

“Ayyappa temple at Sabarimala is a denominational temple”, AM Singhvi stands his ground.

— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) July 24, 2018

#Sabarimala: “Can Supreme Court give a finding that a belief is not of antiquity. Your Lordships cannot disturb a Hindu practice of a particular denomination without factual trial. Article 32 proceedings would be the most wrong way to do it because where is evidence” @DrAMSinghvi

— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) July 24, 2018

#Sabarimala: AM Singhvi asking for a time-bound trial to ascertain facts

“It could be done in three or six months”, Singhvi.

— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) July 24, 2018

#Sabarimala: “You have to show us that you are a denomination”, CJI Dipak Misra to AM Singhvi.

Bench rises for lunch.

— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) July 24, 2018

#Sabarimala: Bench re-assembles, hearing commences.

Singhvi continuing.

— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) July 24, 2018

#Sabarimala: Singhvi on Shirur Matt case and the scope of “denomination”.

— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) July 24, 2018

#Sabarimala: “Suppose we find that you are not a religious denomination, are you going to make an alternative argument”, Nariman J.

“I will argue on Article 25”, Singhvi.

— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) July 24, 2018

#Sabarimala: Singhvi taking court through various judgments to explain scope of “denomination” and assert that Sabarimala temple is a denominational temple.

— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) July 24, 2018

#Sabarimala: Singhvi citing the case of Attukal temple in Kerala which does not allow women during the time of Pongala.

— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) July 24, 2018

#Sabarimala: “Many of these temples the originating thought process is not gender at all.

It is not anti-women, it is a belief and faith”, Singhvi.

— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) July 24, 2018

#Sabarimala: “Mr. Singhvi, the moment they say they are being excluded and it violates A. 14, 15 and 25, then the burden is on you to show is that the practice is not unconstitutional because it is clear that you are exlcuding them”, Nariman J.

— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) July 24, 2018

#Sabarimala: “This case cannot be decided on notions, Your Lordships judgment will have far reaching consequences on the bedrock of faith”, AM Singhvi.

— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) July 24, 2018

#Sabarimala: The older the religion, the more such practices

Sikhism and Bahaism, the more recent faiths dont [have such practices], Nariman J.

— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) July 24, 2018

#Sabarimala: ” Right from the day they are born women have to go through social conditioning – ‘this is what you are supposed to follow, this is your role'”, DY Chandrachud J.

— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) July 24, 2018

#Sabarimala: “The only reason is paternalistic notion that during 41 days women cannot keep the Vratam, no other temple prohibits women”, Nariman J.

— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) July 24, 2018

#Sabarimala: It is due to the notions attached to Vratam, Singhvi.

— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) July 24, 2018

#Sabarimala: It is due to the male dominated society and the notion is only men can perform Vratam but a female, a chattel of man, cannot perform 41-day Vratam retorts Chandrachud.

— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) July 24, 2018

#Sabarimala: Such male chauvinism is prevalent in societies and relgions all over the world, AM Singhvi.

We will obliterate them wherever we can, DY Chandrachud J.

— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) July 24, 2018

#Sabarimala: Violation of Article 17 comes up for debate once again.

CJI Dipak Misra says they wont go into that issue; Indira Jaising immediately points out a dissenting judgment on how excommunication is hit by A.17.

It is now pending consideration of SC, says Jaising.

— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) July 24, 2018

#Sabarimala: @DrAMSinghvi concludes arguments, Bench rises for the day. Hearing to continue tomorrow.

— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) July 24, 2018