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.
SP has ended contract with I-PAC due to fund constraints: Akhilesh Yadav
Lucknow (PTI): Samajwadi Party president Akhilesh Yadav on Wednesday said his party has severed its association with the Indian Political Action Committee (I-PAC) due to a lack of funds.
He dismissed speculations that the termination of contract was because of recent election results.
Addressing a press conference here, Yadav said the party had engaged I-PAC for a brief period ahead of the 2027 Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections but could not continue the arrangement.
"Yes, we had an association. They worked with us for a few months, but we are not able to continue because we do not have that kind of funding," he said.
The I-PAC is a political consultancy firm known for managing major election campaigns across the country.
Election strategist-turned-politician Prashant Kishor has also been associated with the organisation in the past and has worked with multiple parties, including the BJP and the Congress.
In a lighter vein, Yadav took a swipe at the ecosystem of political consultancies. "We thought that if we have to work with a 'winning agency', then there are several big companies."
He said that some people suggested conducting surveys, hiring another firm, keeping a social media company, and even engaging agencies for negative campaigning against other parties.
"There are one or two more companies whose names are not yet known. I can get those for you as well," Yadav said.
Yadav rejected the suggestion that the decision to end the deal was influenced by recent election outcomes in states such as West Bengal.
"There is no such thing. Do not ask questions based on baseless reports. That is not true," he said.
"This is not the reason for ending the agreement. We simply do not have enough funds. If you (the media) give us funds, we can hire another company," the former Uttar Pradesh chief minister said.
