A month ago Supreme Court of India gave the Case in the favour entry to irrespective to all age group women. In this judgement, Justice Indu Malhotra judgement gave the dissenting judgement. As a feminist, student of Constitutional law I am shocked with her Judgement.
[breaking_news_ticker id=”1″ t_length=”35″ bnt_cat=”” post_type=”post” title=”Breaking News” show_posts=”5″ tbgcolor=”222222″ bgcolor=”333333″ bnt_speed=”500″ bnt_direction=”up” bnt_interval=”3000″ border_width=”0″ border_color=”222222″ border_style=”solid” border_radius=”0″ show_date=”show” date_color=”b23737″ controls_btn_bg=”dd3333″ bnt_buttons=”on”]
In this Article I will likely to critically analysis the judgement of justice Indu Malhotra
(1) In her judgement She contained that there is no aggrieved party in this case. From this statement his intention is clear that Public interest system should be abolished in the India which was introduced by the Justice PN Bhagwati for the getting the justice to indigent person.
[maxbutton id=”3″ text=”#SabarimalaVerdict” ]
(2) her another argument is that Right to freedom of freedom can not be tested within the limit of Article 14. This statement is contrary to Article 25 (2) which clearly says that Right conferred under the Right to freedom of religion is subject to public order, morality and health and other fundamental right the intention of this Article clear that As the name of Right to freedom of religion, other fundamental right of individual can not be violated.
(3) In her third argument, she contained that Women can not observe the tradition Vrahturam while there is no scientific reason of this statement that women. Can not observe the tradition of vrahturam. It is nothing more than patriarchal mentality and In her written statement, Respondent also mentioned that before the 1960 Women of. All age group had the right to worship in Sabrimala.
13 December is the date of hearing of review petition on this issue. As a student of Constitution I hope from supreme Court Supreme Court will upheld the validity Indian young Lawyer Association v. State of kerala.
Critical Remark by, Rajesh Yadav.