Understanding the fascinating Supreme Court order & debate among judges on Sabarimala

  • Loading...
  • Published on:  Thursday, November 14, 2019
  • Correction: At 5:17, it's outside instead of otuside. Error is regretted.

    The SC in a 3-2 order referred the Sabarimala review petitions to a 7-Judge bench, and listed for it 7 questions with great bearing on the future of secular India. But the two dissenting judges make a persuasive case too. @ShekharGupta with episode 316 of #CutTheClutter
    Connect with ThePrint
    » Subscribe to ThePrint : http://bit.ly/SubscribeToThePrint
    » Like us on Facebook: /theprintindia
    » Tweet us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/theprintindia
    » Follow us on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/theprintindia
    » Find us on LinkedIn : https://www.linkedin.com/company/theprint
    » Subscribe to ThePrint on Telegram: https://t.me/ThePrintIndia
  • Source: https://youtu.be/avQiVsnTGl8


  • P Balagopal

    P Balagopal

     14 days ago

    actually the verdict is showing the confusion only .

  • Prajyot Ghosalkar

    Prajyot Ghosalkar

     14 days ago

    Agree with your view in Rafale that, SC was Right in distancing himself when it was an ongoing 'executive process' and why to interfere, otherwise they sarcastically call it as 'judicial activism'.😜
    But if SC genuinely not wanted to interfere, they would have kept this case pending till the " Executive Process" gets complete.
    Why SC was in hurry "BEFORE ELECTIONS" to give BJP a clean chit, when process was Still going on.

  • Rahul MN

    Rahul MN

     21 days ago

    Anybody who brings disrepute or tries to bring disrepute to the supreme court either from inside or outside should be tried for treason. As the Apex court is one of the institution of India which is unsullied and universally trusted. Also cheers to BR Ambedkar, his wisdom is far-reaching and it will take many more generations to fully understand his work. He is one of the rishis of Bharat.

  • Rahul MN

    Rahul MN

     21 days ago

    Supreme Court of India is rightly India's Dharma Chakra. These are very important questions which are being discussed, which impact humanity, very far reaching.

  • Satyameba Jayata

    Satyameba Jayata

     21 days ago


  • Prajob Subran

    Prajob Subran

     21 days ago

    Article 25(b) and Article 14 is ensuring discrimination based caste, religion not about gender.

  • HackerKing0001


     21 days ago

    Intricate analyses of common community practices, religious, social or whatever, by extra IQ geniuses in law, politics and media, who can play with words and interpretations thereof in any number of ways depending on their own covert choice of results they desire to create, is just playing with the well intended innocent traditional intents of the community that could be misinterpreted by these extra IQs in law media and politics primarily, to have the society submit to their authority and change social trajectory that defies the wisdom and trust of the people in their traditions.

  • philia124


     21 days ago

    It's was relief when you said Ayyappan devotees unlike NDTV, Wire, Scroll, Huffington Post which referred them as Sabarimala protestors. Such poor choice of journalism. It ranks prejudice against the truth. Thanks for balanced viewed.

  • Joseph Andrews

    Joseph Andrews

     21 days ago

    A mountain out of a mole hill has been made out of an ordinary revision petition , and referred to a 6 bench Constitutional Bench ! Pure Escapism .

  • Venkat Tata

    Venkat Tata

     21 days ago

    Will Sekhar please take up the issue of the mayhem that is being caused by Jagan Reddy in conversion and meddling in affairs in Tirumala temple. Every action of his is Anti-Hindu. Please do some research and bring facts to the fore.

  • Venkat Tata

    Venkat Tata

     21 days ago

    I would like you to rename your program as ‘Politics for Dummies’ Help me to understand complex nuances Congrats

  • justice files

    justice files

     21 days ago

    I agree with you with respect to Rafale

  • Sam


     21 days ago

    Justice Gogoi the most courageous justice of Independent India

  • Jai Bharat

    Jai Bharat

     21 days ago

    Regarding Rafael SC gave no clarity on Justice Joseph what he said about Rafael and what needs to be done by CBI as follow up. SC judges cannot ignore what has been said by the other judge even if they are not in majority and specially so if the majority judges are not commenting anything on previous direction by the fellow judge on the bench. Your comments are in a very limited context of Rafael judgement and justifies Anil bhai as the beneficiary and you may have taken stand not to question the govt. God speed India.

  • reality finder

    reality finder

     21 days ago

    Hindi is a election planning not a religion while SC st Buddhist sikh jain are not Hindus according to sanathan drama while obc are back ward class

  • P.R.velayudhan Mani

    P.R.velayudhan Mani

     21 days ago


  • avneet12284


     21 days ago

    The only lens you need and the only lens that's missing is individual rights. If a private religious body wants to be bigoted then it has that right. Women don't have the right to go to a temple if that owner doesn't want it even if the owner is a misogynist.

    That's what rights mean. Of course, enlightened people should boycott the temple. But if you really are enlightened you shouldn't be religious and instead go by reason.

  • Sandhya Rao Mehta

    Sandhya Rao Mehta

     21 days ago

    This is a very interesting debate which will have everybody taking extreme sides. Its emotional too, because, if Sabarimala is to be taken along with other (Muslim) cases of equality, the harbingers of Hinduism will have a difficult point to contest. Can we leave women from visiting temples and then suggest that Muslim women should be treated equally under the law?

  • Anirban Bandyopadhyay

    Anirban Bandyopadhyay

     21 days ago +1

    One thing is clear, religions are messing with the constitution. It seems religious rights are anti-constitutional.



     21 days ago

    Essential religious practice test itself shows the colonial nature of our system where we are using tests which were formed from colonial & Abrahamic perspectives for dealing with Indian people's diverse practices. There is a need to accept the different core claims of religions to look at their nature & acknowledge the indigenous nature of Indic religions by equating Indic practices {Indigenous & religious} we have already harmed flattened the surface which was once filled with regional diverse practices & now saviors of religion are using this identity crisis to gain support among masses.

    Be like Indian kings, most of them used to patronage all sides Sramanas as well as Brahmins but used to keep final authority of being the judge. No matter what kind of law one creates it will always end up hypocritical.

    The practices of any religion should be challengeable by every individual if they show enough understanding of source material i.e. from beliefs & religions it is emanating from & can prove that the practice is socially harmful e.g. Loudspeaker usage in religious programs.


    So basically all judges agreed that Hindus should only be seen as a monolith & their regional diversities need not be acknowledged. If this is the case then why people who oppose 'Shuddi' or Hindu conversion by right wing only blame them of ending the Indian diversity as they are equally to be blamed for it by this logic & it makes them hypocritical.

    If we are talking about 'equality' then lets define everything that it entails because life is always unequal for every one including those who keep saying everyone is equal & by doing that they not only miss the diversities but also overlook the 'Anektavaad' or multiple perspective view as well as keep creating new blind spots regarding human lives in the name of equality.

    As i have already explained 'Essential practice test' itself comes from Abrahamic perspective & thus new ways must be devised to deal with regional harmful practices but this old test needs to be either updated or replaced with a test that takes into considerations Indic beliefs & their arguments. For e.g. Raja Ram Mohan Roy used hindu religious scriptures to argued for ban of Sati so rather than moving out of conservative belief he argued & subverted the consensus by using supposedly conservative sources of inquiry.

    I am not asking people to go back to past when i am asking them to engage with Indic traditions, for e.g. Here is how Raja Ram presented his case against Sati by using Hindu texts -