Take the pledge to vote

For a better tommorow#AajSawaroApnaKal
  • I agree to receive emails from News18

  • I promise to vote in this year's elections no matter what the odds are.
  • Please check above checkbox.

    SUBMIT

Thank you for
taking the pledge

Vote responsibly as each vote counts
and makes a diffrence

Disclaimer:

Issued in public interest by HDFC Life. HDFC Life Insurance Company Limited (Formerly HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited) (“HDFC Life”). CIN: L65110MH2000PLC128245, IRDAI Reg. No. 101 . The name/letters "HDFC" in the name/logo of the company belongs to Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited ("HDFC Limited") and is used by HDFC Life under an agreement entered into with HDFC Limited. ARN EU/04/19/13618
LIVE TV DownloadNews18 App
News18 English
News18 » India
1-min read

Supreme Court Judge Who Made a U-turn on His Views on Women's Entry to Sabarimala Temple

In the 2018 judgment, Justice Khanwilkar had endorsed the views of the then Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra in holding that female worshippers of the age group of 10 to 50 years must also be allowed in the Kerala’s temple.

Utkarsh Anand | CNN-News18

Updated:November 14, 2019, 6:04 PM IST
facebookTwitter Pocket whatsapp
Supreme Court Judge Who Made a U-turn on His Views on Women's Entry to Sabarimala Temple
File photo of Supreme Court.

New Delhi: Out of the five judges on the Sabarimala bench, Justice AM Khanwilkar happens to be the only one who has gone back on his views.

In the 2018 judgment, Justice Khanwilkar had endorsed the views of the then Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra in holding that female worshippers of the age group of 10 to 50 years must also be allowed in the Kerala’s temple.

The judge had also agreed with the majority view that the devotees of Lord Ayyappa are exclusively Hindus and do not constitute a separate religious denomination as he was a part of the 4:1 majority judgment.

Justice Dipak Misra was replaced by CJI Ranjan Gogoi on this bench after the former had retired, while the other four members of the bench remained the same – Justice Rohinton F Nariman, Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra.

In deciding the clutch of review petitions, while Justice Gogoi opined that the issues required an extensive scrutiny by a seven-judge bench, his views found opposition in Justices Nariman and Chandrachud who remained convinced that the exclusionary practice in Sabrimala was constitutionally immoral and could not be allowed.

Justice Indu Malhotra also retained her views in the review petitions as the majority judgment held that courts need to be careful and circumspect in interfering with the matters of religion and religious practices.

But Justice Khanwilkar turned out to be the only judge who went back on his initial views and now supported Justices Gogoi and Indu Malhotra in calling upon a larger bench to deal with the issues of religious matters and scope of judicial interference.

Get the best of News18 delivered to your inbox - subscribe to News18 Daybreak. Follow News18.com on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Telegram, TikTok and on YouTube, and stay in the know with what's happening in the world around you – in real time.

Read full article
Next Story
Next Story

facebookTwitter Pocket whatsapp

Live TV

Countdown To Elections Results
To Assembly Elections 2018 Results