Religious belief or faith is protected by the constitution, its practices as well. Sabarimala temple is built upon religious belief and faith of the devotees. It has been supported and promoted so far, not by the believers of superstitions, but by the state itself working under the constitution.
The temple practice has got judicial sanctity when the High Court of Kerala issued a judgement in 1991 restricting women of productive age entering the temple. The order has not been challenged in the usual manner neither by the state nor the party which now challenged the issue in the Supreme Court. The court order thus becomes final as per the constitutional and judicial practice in the country.
Then how the Supreme Court took up the issue in a writ and issued a new order without nullifying the 1991 order of the Kerala High Court? There are many other flaws also in the apex court order.
The apex court order is a handiwork of the publicity seeking people both on the civil society and in the judiciary. The order created more problems that it solved in this case. One petition when the court solved enlivened more than 50 reviews right now. Something is wrong with the judicial pronouncements of the Supreme Court right now.
No court can go against the will of the people based on which the laws including the constitution is made by the same people (We the people...), even though it is not the transient or ever changing public opinion of the mob is to be valued by the court.
Please give me the paragraphs and the respective numbers, of the judgments which you have referred as I am at my level not able to find the ratio mentioned in the judgement. And also the cases you have referred please give me the relevant information about right of appeal.
I have understood the issue raised by Mr. Anil Kr Garg and completely agreed with him. However, since this Article is only on bureaucratic atrocity and conspiracy, I have confined my article only to the atrocity and conspiracy of the bureaucrats to dilute the judicial system of our country. It doesn't mean that I have nothing to point out against the judges. I have written more about indifferent attitude of the judges towards injustice done to the common man in some other articles. I have even written that certain judges are deliberately creating causes of action for future litigation instead of discharging their duty of preventing the multiplicity of litigation.