SOME VERDICTS AND SOME CONTROVERSIES

The highest court of India had pronounced some twenty odd verdicts in the recent weeks. Not all of them were unanimous.  Some of them were fractured but majority judgments and there was not much of discussion at national level on the dissenting judgment in some of the cases.

The SC decided on the petition to permit live streaming of court proceedings albeit with a time delay to mute the words that are being expunged in the records.

The SC decided on the validity of the persons with criminal cases against them continuing as law makers. It kicked the ball into the court of the lawmakers to decide on debarring such individuals.

The SC decided on the lawmakers appearing in cases in various courts and decided in favour of such lawmakers who are qualified and enrolled in the bar.

The section 377 of the IPC relating to the same gender sex had been scrapped by a recent SC verdict.  This move had been welcomed and hailed across the country and had its echo in some of the foreign shores and UN welcomed this move.

The SC decided on validity of the Unique identity card (Aadhar) that is being pushed to a great extent.  The dissenting judge was critical that the data collected may give the government of the day a handle to persecute the individual and the individual's privacy is lost in the overall context of Aadhar.  However, the court ruled in favour of the Aadhar with some major changes.  Except a few channels on the day of the judgment none seem to take note of the dissent of the judge and his opinions in the larger context.

In the matter of the petition relating to Ayodhya land dispute, the bench decreed that the Ayodhya land dispute to go ahead with the existing bench; the Muslims do not need a mosque to pray; hearing to commence on a daily basis from Oct 29.  Here also one of the judges dissented.  His dissent is also not being discussed so much in the media except again on the date of judgment.

The SC decided on the petition on reservation based on caste on in cadre promotion to higher echelons in administration. It held that the caste based reservation will be applicable to in cadre promotion and quota system will be followed in promotions also.

The five judge bench of the SC decided to scrap the section 457 maintaining it is unconstitutional, paving the way for decriminalizing adultery. 

The petition challenging the age old practice of the temple at Sabarimala, in Kerala was decided by the SC again in a majority judgment with a lone woman judge being the dissenter.  This majority judgment now permits the women of all ages to visit the temple and worship.

In the above judgments handed out by the SC in the last weeks the most talked about judgments were the ones relating to Ayodhya, Aadhar and the entry of women into Sabarimala.  The Aadhar judgment has scrapped some of the sections of the act relating to that thereby the mandatory nature of the Aadhar for some services had been removed.  This will pave the way for many issues in future which the governments of the day have to tackle it differently.

The issue relating to Sabarimala permitting women all ages into the temple is fraught with some serious issues.  The judgment though a fractured one sailing through with a majority of two to one is being discussed seriously in almost all forums of main stream media, social media etc.  There are even jokes linking the SC verdicts on the adultery, section 377 and entry of women into Sabarimala, which are to be condemned totally.  Here the SC has literally treaded on the toes on the millions of devotees who consider the hill shrine and the age old practice as sacrosanct.  One of the judges is reported to have written that the morality of the mob cannot over rule the individual dignity.  In the same case the dissenting judge had opined that it is not for the court to determine which religious practices to be struck down; the shrine and the deity are protected by the Art 25 of the constitution and and the religious practices cannot be tested solely on the Art. 14 of the constitution.

While some of the judgments that have come in for hailing the SC as a saviour, the verdict on the Sabarimala issue has brought the majority of the people to denounce the same as impinging on the centuries old practices that are followed in the temple.  There are deeper questions that have to be looked into without being emotional.  If the religious practices have to be decided by the court of law, be it a district court or the Supreme court of the country, what is the sanctity for the religion and the practices that have been in force for centuries. 

If an atheist or a neo-convert to another religion (as it happens quite often in the southern states), demand that the practices of not allowing the other religion people working in the temples' management is anti constitutional and against the fundamental rights of the citizen, will the SC uphold that view and permit the doors of the temples' management open to one and all.  As it is there are enough of crypto Christians, disguising their real identity, from the southern districts in Tamilnadu working in the administration of the temple either in the Hindu Relgious and Charitable Endowments department of the government or in some of the major revenue earning temples.  

Will the SC look into the religious practices in other major religions in the country wherein the women are not treated at par with menfolk? There is a huge gap among the genders when it comes to the religious practices especially in Abrahamic religions.  But the people who questioned the taboo of entry women of a particular age group into Sabarimala are totally silent about these practices. Why none of the leftists, who rule the state of Kerala where the Sabarimala temple is located or the feminists who were demanding entry into Shani Shinganapur and Sabarimala for women of all ages not file a petition in the SC demanding that a nun be made a parish priest or a Bishop or a Cardinal or allow all women to pray at all mosques without any discrimination?  Why no one seems to question the gender inequality in these religious practices?  

However, the religion followed by majority in the country had become a whipping boy for the leftists, neo-liberals and feminists. Anything to do with the majority religion in the country, they are immediately up in arms; but when it comes to anything with the Abrahamic religion, they are not to be found anywhere.  The classic examples are the Kathua rape case and the recent happening relating to a nun and a Bishop.  

The most unfortunate thing in the country is that most of these neo-liberals and the leftists are from the majority community and the age old dictum that the fence is eating the crop is apt in these cases. We had incidents of Jaichand in north to Ettappan in south during the times of British wars with local kings and chieftains. This saga continues even today.  The bane of the education system we have adopted may be one of the reasons for such a down fall.