Sabarimala case: The petitioner claim is to an outrageous right to sexual harassment

A right that is inalienable to the personality, if violated will effectively extinguish the existence of that personality

If a
If a "juridical person" decides to limit his own access to persons, it is the prerogative of the person.

If a “juridical person” decides to limit his own access to persons who might naturally disturb his or her celibacy by their presence, it is the prerogative of the legal right of the person.

It is an established principle of law that Hindu deities are “juridical persons” and any juridical person also has a juridical personality that arises from both the established customs and the law. If that personality involves celibacy, any move to disturb that is tantamount to violation of the right that the person enjoys. In the case of a disturbance to celibacy, it would arguably be a sexual offense that can be categorized under various laws appropriately pertaining to it.

The Hon’ble Court should see through the mischief of the petitioners and make punitive awards so that such incidents are not encouraged to repeat itself.

Obviously, nobody including the Hon’ble Apex Court can be a party to such a crime by aiding and abetting it. The counsel for one of the defendants, in this case, has rightly pointed out that it will indeed be a violation of the celibacy of the deity who is held to be a “Naishtika Brahmachari”. Nobody has a right to sexual harassment. So the fundamental question that should be dealt with first is if there is a prima facie case to be answered.

The petitioner’s case thus being outrageous and insulting to both the spirit and letter of the constitution and the touchstone of natural justice is an abuse of the process of the court. The Hon’ble Court should see through the mischief of the petitioners and make punitive awards so that such incidents that affect the majesty of law are not encouraged to repeat itself.

On the comparison with mosques, which seems to have been acknowledged by the Hon’ble Court, this is not a blanket ban on all women but a provision that protects the right of the “juridical person” from being harassed. If such person decides to limit his own access to persons who might naturally disturb his or her celibacy by their presence at certain times and/or at all times, it is the prerogative of the legal right of the person, natural or juridical.

Such a right, especially one that is inalienable to the personality (and perhaps the very existence of the “person”), if violated will effectively extinguish the existence of that personality and in corollary the person itself. Such extinction does not appear to be permitted either in the constitutionally approved law or in the scheme of natural justice, let alone the traditions and customs concerned.


Note:
1. The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of PGurus.

Murali KV

A medic and a graduate of the University of Cambridge, England,involved in inter-disciplinary research for the inculcation of a scientific rigour in the outdatedfields of humanities: putting "science"
into social sciences.

6 COMMENTS

  1. India is the only country on the face of the world, where Minorities have been able to rule over majority for almost seventy years. Congress and communists with the support of Missionaries have been able to put all comrades and converted Christians from Kerala and Tamilnadu to demonize and destroy Hindu religion. Every temple has the legal authority to allow or ban any one . can we allow some one who is drunk and is behaving criminally? can we allow some one who does not respect our dharma? Hope fully the court understands the sensitivity of the issue and allows the temple authorities to come with common sense laws so that they dont discriminate. we can not ask ladies whether they are in periods or what. let the ladies decide when they would like to visit the temple and show respects. A girl child is a sister, mother, daughter and always pure. Only a woman can give birth to a child. Let us respect this and dont make the issue complicated to give a chance for aniti Hindu forces to attack us every where.

  2. Submission made by senior advocate Mr.parasan who appeared for NSS in this case is worth listening. I strongly feel that those who filed this case has some other ulterior motive other than temple entry by women. Their advocate one Mr Gupta who filed the case know nothing about Lord Ayyappa and the rituals in Sabarimala.( Courtesy Janam TV interview with him).

  3. Freedom of following any religion applies equally to minority religion as well. Right from the day of Independence to this day, no minority religious institutions have ever been interfered in order to regulate them. Why this blatant discrimination. Hindus have been totally cheated in an unfair fashion is the bitter reality.
    The place of worship (special provisions) bill 1991 – This act details what are all the places of worship:-Temple, Mosque, Church, Gurdhuwar, Matts and the similar places of worship. The convention that they were following until 1947, their religious practices, sampradaya, worship places should never be transferred to someone else under this provisions. This of course does not be applicable to state of Jammu & Kashmir. Existing legal disputes will be covered by this law. But Archaeological sites, Historical Monuments sites and structures of Historical importance are exempted from this coverage The most important Rama Janna Bhoomi dispute cannot be covered by this. People became sore as the court inordinately delayed resolving of the dispute which irked the devotees to the extent of driving them to bring down the Babur Dome in 1992.

    • Exactly. If courts had respected the majority and native Hindu sentiments we wouldn’t have had to bring down that dome. But what to do all are appointed by nehruvian congress which doesn’t respect Indian sentiments.

  4. Right to practice celibacy whether by natural person or by artificial juridical person is a fundamental right and it cannot be infringed upon or violated at any cost. Great piece of argument indeed. Just to clarify one thing. Whether on the same lines can it be said that right to indulge in unnatural sex by LGBT community is also a valid right which needs to be protected?

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here