Sabarimala Temple Dispute: Restricting women from 10 to 50 years of entry into the Sabarimala temple is equally unjust, just as there should be no female pastor in the church, widows should be kept in a different shelter and the women should not enter the mosque. its wrong. When viewed from the perspective of ethics, a person with the right thinking might say that wrong with the claim.
Courts of a country are not moral guards of society. From them, it is expected to make the basic questions judiciously based on the constitution. If the question of restriction on the entry of women in the Sabarimala temple is seen in a constitutional way, then it appears to be stuck between a person’s worship rights and a dispute regarding the religious rules of the community.
Jurists pronounced their decision on this and cleverly settled on the balance of the solution to the question. But he did not accept the devotees of Lord Ayyappa as a separate religious noun or sect, and rejected the existence of this group in a way. By doing so, they denied the devotees of this group with the right to make their own rules. Thus, this decision of the court seems flawed at two points. (1) In this judgment, the original text of the Constitution was conceived in which this right has been given not only to religious sects but to the sections also. This armor, given to protect the rights of religious groups by the constitution, is not controversial.
(2) If a court decides on the decision of dogma to test the determination of any religious sect, (as it has been taken in the case of Sabarimala), then it means that the court has formed the barren form of Hindu religion, whose Hindu religion There is no specific mention in texts. In Hindu scriptures, the pursuit of fanatic routes for the boycott of other religions or salvation is considered unfavorable. Constitutional doctrines are also not derived from zero. So they can not be taken in a conservative way.
Justice Chandrachud has the view that, “The basis on which the Constitution stands, the basis of that dignity is in every person’s dignity, in which happiness is found.” If we are to pursue a personal happiness at the philosophical level Talk, then it can be considered as a coincidental purpose for our constitution, because it is somewhere in the writings, theories or debates of the Constitution makers Do not get the call. Our philosophical tradition has come to be considered as the best wishes of a person for the sense of ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’. Justice Chandrachud does not seem to implement Jefferson’s comment on the Indian Constitution.
The freedom and equality of our Constitution serve equally important objectives. Similarly, the responsibility of the nation in describing the duties of the people and the distribution of resources for the well-being of the people is also described. Therefore, restricting the expansion of the Constitution to ‘dignity of the person’, narrowing the way to define it. Our Constitution is a direct mirror of India’s natural pluralism. In it there are elements of a pragmatic practical evaluation to prevent the creation of a relatively similar society and the orders of the government. All these purposes will be possible only if the rule of religion is ruled out. Where religion will be, there will be Jai. Our constitution has been established on this belief.
In the context of ethical questions of our country, mentioning foreign principles is not justified. It is a different matter whether the court reached the right point. The institutional validity of the court can create a protest against those people. Those who think that the court has made a mistake on the facts. Therefore, it is the duty of the court that it not only discourages the interpretation of the constitution but also the people of the country. Doing so may lead to far-reaching damage.