Sabarimala: Hindu Religion very tolerant, K Parasaran for NSS (Day 5)

Published on:

25 Jul 2018, 6:47 am

1 min read

The Supreme Court continues to hear the case relating to entry of women into Sabarimala Temple for the fifth day.

The case is being heard by a Bench presided by Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Rohinton Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra.

Read a summary of yesterday’s proceedings here.

Live updates follow:

#Sabarimala: Bench assembles, hearing commences. Sr. Adv. K Parasaran begins submissions for Nair Service Society.
— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) July 25, 2018

#Sabarimala: K Parasaran on Kerala society; Most women in Kerala educated, Kerala had communities which were matriarchal.
— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) July 25, 2018

#Sabarimala: Hindu religion is a very tolerant religion, K Parasaran.
— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) July 25, 2018

#Sabarimala: By and large, Hindu laws dont discriminate, K Parasaran.
— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) July 25, 2018

#Sabarimala: Parasaran now on the ‘character’ of the deity in Sabarimala; “Ayyappa is a ‘naishtika brahmachari”.
— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) July 25, 2018

#Sabarimala: Bench rises for lunch.
— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) July 25, 2018

#Sabarimala: Bench re-assembles, Parasaran continues.
— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) July 25, 2018

#Sabarimala: Parasaran on Article 25(2)(b).
Parasaran saya the right of State to make laws to throw open Hindu Temples to all classes and sections of Hindus does not include women within it scope.
“Why are women exlcuded” asks CJI Dipak Misra and Rohinton Nariman.
— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) July 25, 2018

#Sabarimala: Parasaran says Article 25(2)(b) has to be interpreted as a special provision for backward classes who were discrimimated against and not allowed entry into temples.
— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) July 25, 2018

#Sabarimala: A rule which excludes a section is not contemplated by Article 25(2)(b). A.25(2)(b) enables State to make laws. Hence, that Article might not be relevant in this context, Justice DY Chandrachud.
— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) July 25, 2018

#Sabarimala: “Mr. Parasaran, Is Article 25(2)(b) tied to the core of Article 17, asks Nariman J.
“Yes”, Parasaran.
If so what is the need for A.17? Nariman J.
— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) July 25, 2018

#Sabarimala: To make things absolutely clear, says Parasaran.
— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) July 25, 2018

Correction: “If so what is the need for Article 25(2)(b)”, Nariman J.
— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) July 25, 2018

#Sabarimala: Parasaran says Article 25(2)(b) is to address caste discrimination because the Article applies only to Hindus..If it was meant to apply to women also then it should have been applicable to all religions since discrimination against women are there in other religions
— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) July 25, 2018

#Sabarimala: K Parasaran concludes submissions, Amicus Curiae Raju Ramachandran and Sr. Adv. Indira Jaising heap praise on the veteran Senior.
“He promised me he won’t say a word against women and he kept his word”, says Jaising.
— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) July 25, 2018