SC verdict on prohibiting women in Sabarimala temple on Friday
New Delhi, Sep 27 : The Supreme Court is likely to pronounce on Friday its verdict on the plea challenging the practice of prohibiting women in 10 to 50 age group from entering the Sabarimla temple having the deity of Lord Ayyappa in a "naishtika brahmacharya" (perennial celibate).
The hearing on the challenge to the practice by the five-judge constitution bench had seen Kerala government asserting that the Sabarimala temple does not belong to a religious denomination and it could not invoke the protection of Article 26 of the Constitution to save the practice of prohibiting women in the age group of 10 to 50 years from entering the temple.
The matter, which witnessed shifting stands of the Kerala government with the change of governments, saw the Left Front government telling the court that Lord Jagannath's temple, Kash Vishwnath temple and similar religious places are not denominational temples but the Ramakrishna Mission was a denominational entity.
On the conclusion of the hearing, the constitution bench had made it clear that it would decide the issue based on constitutional provisions and not by the statues enacted by the state -- Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institution Act, 1950 and Kerala Hindu Places of Worship (Authorization of Entry) Act, 1965.
Besides Chief Justice Dipak Misra who headed the constitution bench, other judges on the bench were Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Indu Malhotra.
Parties supporting the practice of barring the women in 10-50 years age group from entering the temple had told the court: "It is a unique Ayyappa temple following a religious practice as protected by Article 25(1) on the strength of the religious practice based on the religious belief from time immemorial."
Referring to the antiquity of practice, the court was told that the temple could invoke Article 25(1) to protect the practice, and since its management was entrusted to a board by a statute, it was duty-bound to protect a practice based on religious belief.
The hearing had also seen the defenders of practice asserting that the deity of Lord Ayyappa in a "naishtika brahmacharya" too had the rights which should be respected.
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.
Karnataka Legislative Council Chairman expresses displeasure over absent ministers
Bengaluru (PTI): Karnataka Legislative Council Chairman Basavaraj Horatti on Tuesday briefly adjourned the House, expressing displeasure over the absence of Ministers and ruling party members post lunch break.
The development comes a day after Assembly Speaker U T Khader adjourned the House and walked out in protest, over the lack of written replies from government departments to questions raised by MLAs.
The "unprecedented" move by the Speaker had caused huge embarrassment to the Congress government, forcing the Chief Minister Siddaramaiah to issue directives to Ministers and bureaucrats, including suspending errant officials.
When the council resumed after lunch, Leader of Opposition Chalavadi Narayanaswamy pointed toward the empty treasury benches and suggested that ruling party members seemed to have "boycotted" the proceedings.
Only Minister of School Education and Literacy Madhu Bangarappa and Chief Whip Saleem Ahmed were in attendance.
The Chairman asked, "Ministers are not here; what should I do?"
Raising objection to empty treasury benches, Opposition Chief Whip N Ravikumar said, "If we have to speak on any issues, who should we tell? Who is there among Ministers? Where is the government?"
Following this, Horatti adjourned the House for 10 minutes.
When the House resumed, a couple of Ministers -- Ramalinga Reddy, Santosh Lad arrived, but the treasury benches by and large remained sparse as most of the ruling Congress MLCs were absent.
The Chairman asked the Chief Whip Saleem Ahmed, "If there are no members and Ministers on the treasury bench side, what is it? How should the House be run? If you don't want, I will adjourn the House for tomorrow. What other work is there during the session? If there are no members and the seats are empty, how can the House run?"
When Horatti asked the Chief Whip about the MLCs, Ahmed replied, "They will be coming."
Pointing out that MLCs were not present, despite the House resuming late post lunch, the Chairman said, "What should we do? Shall I adjourn the House for tomorrow? What do you mean that they will be coming? I don't like it."
Ravikumar attacked the ruling Congress, asking, "Before whom should we raise the issues?"
When the Chairman expressed his willingness to adjourn the House till Wednesday morning, Ravikumar said the opposition BJP was ready to participate in the proceedings, provided the treasury benches show equal cooperation.
Defending the ruling party members, Congress MLC Ramesh Babu said there was some delay in the return of his party colleagues, who had gone for lunch.
As a couple of Ministers and ruling party MLCs started trickling in, the Chairman called BJP MLC A H Vishwanth to speak on the Budget.
