Women of Kerala create history
Women of Kerala have created history again. Having asserted their identity and right to cover their breasts about a century ago, the women of Kerala have again made a mark for themselves by having entered the sanctum sanctorum of Ayyappa Swami temple. With this, they have also upheld the dignity and honour of Supreme Court verdict, along with constitutional values with their act. The leftist government of Kerala had vowed to ensure the verdict of the Supreme Court would be held up, under all circumstances, has held up the word. About 50lakh women had formed a women’s wall along the length of the state, starting from Kasargod to Thiruvananthapuram.
Even as this news was fresh on people’s minds, two women Bindu and Kanakadurga entered the temple of Ayyappa Swamy in Sabarimala, breaking the barrier that stopped them from entering the temple since ages. This barrier was put up by the narrow minded traditionalists for their own benefit. The restriction to women between ages of 10 and 50 is not something that was laid down by the god, but by people. This is an irrational, unscientific and evil belief created and circulated by patriarchal society. This has no space in modern society.
Supreme Court had ruled recently that women have to be given equal opportunity to enter the temple just as men. This has to be implemented by any elected government. Hence, the Pinarayi government that has strong left roots had voiced its commitment to ensure the verdict would be implemented. The Sangh Parivar and BJP were waiting for a change to set foot into Kerala and this ruling came as a big chance to make that happen. Hence they started some violent protests in the name of dissidence.This violence, stone pelting and other ruckus scared the devotees and the number of believers visiting the temple came down. This showed on the income of the temple too. Even then, BJP didn’t reduce its Goondagiri. National President of BJP Amit Shah who should have told his state unit members to not engage in violence, came down to the state and encouraged them to get into more damaging behavior. The person sitting in the chair of PM never parted his lips to even speak against this violence. Now, all of a sudden, he has woken up from the slumber and has spoken about the issues surrounding this verdict.
The tradition of the temple is that women between ages of 10 and 50 shouldn’t enter the temple. Every temple would have its tradition and people believe it should be followed. Nothing is more humiliating than this. What can one expect from people who wanted to bury the constitution and bring in Manu Smriti as a quasi-constitution? Such people need to remember something. Kerala has its own share of wonderful social reforms. Protests had happened owing to entry into the temples such as Vaikum and Guruvayur movements as well. This is a land of rational thinkers such as Narayana Guru, Ayyan Kali, Chattambi Swami, Kelappan and AKG among the others. This is the land where they walked. On a ground like this, there is no space for regressive RSS and other Sangh elements that propose and follow Manu. This has been made clear in Kerala again. People have upheld the constitution and rejected blind practices,
BJP has no other issues to go close to people except for those such as Baba Budan Giri and Sabarimala, to create a base for itself down South. Their government has to face people’s ire over badly managed demonetization, GST implementation and inflation. BJP has not fulfilled any promise they made to the people of this country. Which is why the party had to taste defeat in the election of five states. Opportunist Congress has also joined hands with communal forces in Kerala since there is no tandem between the national president of this party and its state chief. Cong feels hindus will vote for them if they join hands with the BJP on this.
The upper caste vested interests who cannot tolerate an Ezava (lower caste) man Pinarayi Vijayan being the CM of the state, have joined hands with the Sangh on this. A cartoon depicting a man preparing arrack with a tagline of “this is what happens if arrack brewers become the CM” has already stirred huge controversy. Those who want to keep women away from the temples in the name of tradition, will also want lower castes to stay away from temples in the name of same tradition. The Hindu rashtra that they want to build, has same dangerous elements. A big congrats to the leftist government, and progressive women who offered a major setback to the traditionalists and restricted minds who had threatened to take Kerala to dark ages. The state proved itself literate through this step.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Bengaluru (PTI): Justice B V Nagarathna of the Supreme Court on Saturday called for the creation of a judicial reforms commission to reduce mounting pendency in the courts, saying systemic incentives across stakeholders were contributing to delays in justice delivery.
She was speaking at the Supreme Court Bar Association's (SCBA) first National Conference on the theme "Reimagining judicial governance: strengthening institutions for democratic justice" here.
Nagarathna, who was part of the panel session addressing "From Pendency to Prompt Justice: Rethinking Justice Delivery in Indian Courts," said, this reforms commission must have membership not only from the judiciary of the Supreme Court, the High Court, as well as the District judiciary, but also have members from the Bar, Attorney General, Solicitor General, and also certain members representing the Bar at the institutional level, such as the Bar President, and from the government side to enable an inter-institutional dialogue on reducing pendency.
She reflected that, from the point of view of various stakeholders, a litigant gains from the status quo, to proceed to prolong proceedings.
ALSO READ: A political legacy, but no win yet: Padmaja Venugopal''s new fight in Thrissur
"A lawyer or an advocate loves adjournments and postponement because he/she benefits from per appearance and extended timelines. A government department reduces bureaucratic risk by appealing rather than accepting defeat.
"A judge, and particularly a trial judge, is always acting with caution because he/she is confronted with appellate reversal, and therefore he/she prefers procedural caution rather than having an aggressive docket control. Each of these decisions is individually rational, but how does it help the system? It is only leading to systemic delay," she added.
In order to break this equilibrium, Justice Nagarathna said that what is required is institutional interventions through a judicial commission to reduce pendency, rather than merely exhorting better conduct from judges, adherence to procedural timelines, asking advocates not to seek adjournments, urging the government to reduce litigation, or expecting courts to function round the clock and judges not to take leave.
On pendency, the judge questioned the inclusion of defective filings in court statistics, suggesting that such cases should not be counted until they are procedurally ready for hearing.
She also underlined the role of the government as the "largest generator of litigation", noting that officials tend to file appeals to avoid scrutiny, even in cases where disputes could be settled earlier. This, she said, results in cases travelling through multiple judicial levels unnecessarily.
"The government publicly expresses concern about judicial backlog, while simultaneously feeding that backlog through relentless litigation," she observed.
Justice Nagarathna further claimed judicial capacity is constrained by inadequate public investment, including delays in appointment of judges, lack of infrastructure and insufficient use of technology.
Among the measures suggested, she called for improved case management, curbs on unnecessary adjournments, adoption of technology, prioritisation of cases, promotion of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, and creation of specialised benches.
She also urged advocates to adhere to professional and ethical standards, litigants to avoid frivolous appeals, and the government to adopt a practical litigation policy and ensure timely funding and appointments in the judiciary.
