P.C. George MLA prefers Review Petition in Sabarimala case, Accuses the State Govt. of Irresponsibility and Insensitivity

The Poonjar constituency of PC George MLA has become volatile after Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the writ petition, permitting the entry of women aged between to 10-50 years. Petitioners totally alien to the customary practices prevalent in Kerala, have intentionally and with malafide alleged that, menstruation is the reason for the restriction of women in the age group of 10-50 years in Sabarimala. In the writ petition filed under Art 32, the petitioners had contended that, the restriction on the entry of women to Sabarimala is due to Rule 3(b) and Hon’ble SC failed to appreciate that Rule 3(b) is only a statutory recognition of the pre existing custom and does not have any relation with entry to Sabarimala Temple.

The review petition filed by PC george,  MLA  raises a series of questions as to:

  • How far a court can determine the logic behind certain religious customs and usages that has been in practice from time in memorial and can courts ensure principles of equality in such customary religious practices ?
  • Article 26 applies to the Sabarimala Temple as Sabarimala Ayyappa temple and devotees of Lord Ayyappa at Sabarimala form a clear religious denomination. Article 26 is not subject to the other provisions of Part III (unlike Article 25) and so how and where does the question of the application of Articles 14 and 15 to it arise?
  • Whether religious institutions can be artificially included in the definition of “State” under Article 12, as the equality provisions are enforceable only against the State.
  • Can a State Government,fully aware of the rituals and traditions existing in the State of Kerala ,question the rules that were framed by the State of Kerala in support of the Kerala Hindu Place of Public Worship Rules (Authorisation of Entry) Rules 1965 instead of protecting the religious practices connected with Hindu temples in Kerala?
  • Hindu religion has traditionally followed the rituals and customs, as handed over by their elders over generations, and have always considered it part and parcel of their religious practices especially in connection with worship and temple entry. Can the Hon’ble court, insist on documentary proofs to substantiate the prevailing practice in Sabarimala Temple?
  • How far can the believers and devotees of sabarimala temple accept the judgement made by judges, who have no idea about the customary practices and traditions that existed in Kerala, from time in memorial?
  • Can Court determine whether certain practice was “essential” to the religion?

George is the only legislator who has approached the Hon’ble Supreme court by preferring the Review Petition. George who has always been bold in expressing his views. The petition is to be considered among other Review Petitions on the 13th of November.

Facebook Comments