Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-7f7b94f6bd-l8tfn Total loading time: 0.335 Render date: 2022-06-28T21:01:24.161Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Just Hindus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 April 2020

Abstract

What happens when courts reach “good” outcomes through “bad” reasoning? Are there limits to consequentialist jurisprudence? The Indian Supreme Court’s recent decision in IYLA v. State of Kerala offers important insights on both issues. IYLA, decided in September 2018, held that the Hindu temple at Sabarimala may not ban women aged ten to fifty from its premises even though devotees argue the exclusion is religiously mandated. Reactions to IYLA have been vehement and violent, and so far only two women in the prohibited age range have managed to visit the temple. Perhaps any outcome impinging on religious practice would have elicited such responses. Nevertheless, the Court’s analysis, which disregarded devotee perspectives in its eagerness to acknowledge the previously overlooked perspectives of women, is problematic insofar as it superficially upholds the Court’s reputation as a progressive institution while creating bad precedent by further damaging the “essential practices” doctrine. This article draws on case law and legal analysis to demonstrate how the Court’s reasoning paid short shrift to its own doctrines and to conflicting imperatives in the Indian Constitution. The Court’s (and ruling’s) failures underscore the extent to which winning good outcomes through bad reasoning should be sobering rather than satisfying.

Type
Articles
Copyright
© 2020 American Bar Foundation

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Appadurai, Arjun, and Breckenridge, Carol Appadurai. “The South Indian Temple: Authority, Honour and Redistribution.” Contributions to Indian Sociology 10, no. 2 (1976): 187211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Azad, Nikita. “‘A Young Bleeding Woman’ Pens an Open Letter to the ‘Keepers’ of Sabrimala Temple.” Youth Ki Awaaz, Nov. 20, 2015a. https://www.youthkiawaaz.com/2015/11/open-letter-to-devaswom-chief-sabrimala.Google Scholar
Azad, Nikita “#HappyToBleed: An Initiative Against Sexism.” Countercurrents, Nov. 23, 2015b. https://www.countercurrents.org/azad231115.htm.Google Scholar
Bhatia, Gautam. The Transformative Constitution: A Radical Biography in Nine Acts. Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India: HarperCollins India, 2019.Google Scholar
Bickel, Alexander M. The Supreme Court and the Idea of Progress. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1978.Google Scholar
Bork, Robert H. The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law. New York: Touchstone, 1990.Google Scholar
British Broadcasting Corporation. “Sabarimala Temple: Indian Women Form ‘620km Human Chain’ for Equality.” BBC, January 1, 2019. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-46728521.Google Scholar
Chandrachud, Chintan. “Constitutional Interpretation.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution. Edited by Choudhry, Sujij, Khosla, Madhav, and Mehta, Prahap Bhanu, 7393. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2016.Google Scholar
Cohn, Bernard S.Anthropological Notes on Law and Disputes in North India.” In The Bernard Cohn Omnibus, 575631. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2004.Google Scholar
Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol. IX. Sept. 18, 1949.Google Scholar
Crovetto, Helen. “Ananda Marga’s Tantric Neo-Humanism.” In The Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature. Edited by Taylor, Bron and Kaplan, Jeffrey, 4749. London: Thoemmes Continuum, 2005.Google Scholar
Das Acevedo, Deepa. “Divine Sovereignty, Indian Property Law, and the Dispute over the Padmanabhaswamy Temple.” Modern Asian Studies 50, no. 3 (2016a): 841–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Das Acevedo, DeepaTemples, Courts, and Dynamic Equilibrium in the Indian Constitution.The American Journal of Comparative Law 64, no. 3 (2016b): 555–82.Google Scholar
Das Acevedo, DeepaSovereignty and Social Change in the Wake of India’s Recent Sodomy Cases.Boston College International & Comparative Law Review 40, no. 1 (2017): 126.Google Scholar
Das Acevedo, DeepaGods’ Homes, Men’s Courts, Women’s Rights.International Journal of Constitutional Law 16, no. 2 (2018): 552–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derrett, J. Duncan M.. Religion, Law, and the State in India. New York: Free Press, 1968.Google Scholar
Desai, Ashok H., and Muralidhar, S., “Public Interest Litigation: Potential and Problems.” In Supreme But Not Infallible — Essays in Honour of the Supreme Court of India. Edited by Kirpal, B.N., Desai, Ashok H, Subramaniam, Gopal, Ramachandran, Raju, and Dhavan, Rajeev, 159–92. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2000.Google Scholar
Dhavan, Rajeev, and Nariman, Fali S. “The Supreme Court and Group Life: Religious Freedom, Minority Groups and Disadvantaged Communities.” In Supreme But Not Infallible — Essays in Honour of the Supreme Court of India. Edited by Kirpal, B.N., Desai, Ashok H, Subramaniam, Gopal, Ramachandran, Raju, and Dhavan, Rajeev, 159–92. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2000.Google Scholar
Doniger, Wendy. On Hinduism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Easwar, Rahul. “Why Sabarimala Has Restrictions on Women.” TheNewsMinute, January 14, 2016. https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/why-sabarimala-has-restrictions-women-rahul-easwar-explains-37674.Google Scholar
Fuller, C.J. “Hinduism and Scriptural Authority in Modern Indian Law.Comparative Studies in Society and History 30, no. 2 (1988): 225–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galanter, Marc. “Hinduism, Secularism, and the Indian Judiciary.Philosophy East and West 21, no. 4 (1971): 467–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
General Department, Bundle 430: File 1165 (1946–49) and Bundle 425: File 688 (1946–49) Kerala State Archives, Kerala, India.Google Scholar
Indo-Asian News Service. “Verdict on Review in Sabarimala Case Pending.” Outlook India, August 16, 2019. https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/verdict-on-review-in-sabarimala-case-pending/1597749.Google Scholar
Jacob, Jeemon. “Sabarimala Protests Put Kerala on Hold, 200 Locations Blocked.” India Today, October 10, 2018. https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/sabarimala-protests-put-kerala-on-hold-200-locations-blocked-1360237-2018-10-10.Google Scholar
Jacobsohn, Gary Jeffrey. Constitutional Identity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khaitan, TarunabhEquality: Legislative Review under Article 14.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution. Edited by Choudhry, Sujij, Khosla, Madhav, and Mehta, Prahap Bhanu, 699719. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2016.Google Scholar
Mani, Lata. Contentious Traditions: The Debate on Sati in Colonial India. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1998.Google Scholar
Mehta, Pratap Bhanu.The Indian Supreme Court and the Art of Democratic Positioning.” In Unstable Constitutionalism: Law and Politics in South Asia. Edited by Tushnet, Mark and Khosla, Madhav, 233–60. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osella, Flippo, and Osella, Caroline. “‘Ayyappan Saranam’: Masculinity and the Sabarimala Pilgrimage in Kerala.Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 9, no. 4 (2003): 729–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pillai, Amrita, and Sekhar, Reshma, “The Art of Writing a Judgement.” The Hindu, July 24, 2018. https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/the-art-of-writing-a-judgment/article24497762.ece.Google Scholar
Rig Veda. Translated by Ralph T. H. Griffith (1896). https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv01164.htm.Google Scholar
Robinson, Nick. “Structure Matters: The Impact of Court Structure on the Indian and U.S. Supreme Courts.The American Journal of Comparative Law 61, no.1. (2013): 173208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schonthal, Benjamin, Moustafa, Tamir, Nelson, Matthew, and Shankar, Shylashri. “Is the Rule of Law an Antidote for Religious Tension? The Promise and Peril of Judicializing Religious Freedom.American Behavioral Scientist 60, no. 8 (2016): 966–86.Google Scholar
Scroll.in. “Sabarimala: Temple Priest, BJP and Congress Hail SC Decision to Refer Review Pleas to Larger Bench.” Scroll.in, November 14, 2019a. https://scroll.in/latest/943676/sabarimala-temple-priest-bjp-and-congress-hail-sc-decision-to-refer-review-pleas-to-larger-bench.Google Scholar
Scroll.in. “Sabarimala: Women Who Entered Shrine Have Received Death Threats, Say Police,” Scroll.in, Feb. 4, 2019b. https://scroll.in/latest/911949/sabarimala-women-who-entered-shrine-have-received-death-threats-say-police.Google Scholar
Sen, Ronojoy. Articles of Faith: Religion, Secularism, and the Indian Supreme Court. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, Brad. “How the Conservatives Canonized Brown v. Board of Education .” Rutgers Law Review 52, no. 2 (2000): 383494.Google Scholar
Spivak, Gayatri. “Can the Subaltern Speak?” In Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture. Edited by Nelson, Cary and Grossberg, Lawrence, 271313. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, Winnifred Fallers. The Impossibility of Religious Freedom. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005.Google Scholar
Supreme Court Observer. “Parties Involved: Sabarimala Temple Entry.” Supreme Court Observer, December 24, 2019. https://www.scobserver.in/court-case/sabrimala-temple-entry-case.Google Scholar
Tharoor, Shashi. “Why Sabarimala Leaves Instinctive Liberals Like Me Torn.” ThePrint, November 28, 2018. https://theprint.in/opinion/why-sabarimala-issue-leaves-instinctive-liberals-like-me-torn-shashi-tharoor/147759.Google Scholar
The News Minute. “Don’t Complain If You Are Molested: Ex-TDB President on Women’s Entry into Sabarimala.” TheNewsMinute, October 13, 2018. https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/don-t-complain-if-you-are-molested-ex-tdb-president-women-s-entry-sabarimala-89907.Google Scholar
Times News Network. “Outrage on Facebook After Sabarimala Board Wants Machine That Scans Menstruating Women.” Times of India, November 23, 2015. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Outrage-on-Facebook-after-Sabarimala-board-wants-machine-that-scans-menstruating-women/articleshow/49888621.cms.Google Scholar
Times News Network. “Second Day Running, Sabarimala Is a No-Woman’s Land.” Times of India, October 19, 2018. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/second-day-running-sabarimala-is-a-no-womans-land/articleshow/66278647.cms.Google Scholar
Times Now Digital. “Sabarimala Verdict: Ayyappa Devotees Protest on Kerala Streets.” TimesNowNews, October 14, 2018. https://www.timesnownews.com/india/article/sabarimala-verdict-ayyappa-devotees-protest-on-kerala-streets/299283.Google Scholar
Times Now Digital. “Sabarimala Row: For the First Time in a Month, Kanakadurga Meets Her Children.” TheNewsMinute, February 17, 2019. https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/sabarimala-row-first-time-month-kanakadurga-meets-her-children-96856.Google Scholar
Tyler, Tom R. “Psychological Perspectives on Legitimacy and Legitimation.Annual Review of Psychology 57, no. 1 (2006): 375400.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Uma, Saumya, and Acevedo, Deepa DasS. Mahendran v. Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board.” In The Indian Feminist Judgments Project. Edited by Aparna Chandra and Jhuma Sen. In author’s possession, n.d.Google Scholar
Vishwanath, Apurva. “Trust Agrees to Let Women into Haji Ali Shrine’s Inner Sanctum.” LiveMint, October 24, 2016. https://www.livemint.com/Politics/4zfPdHpsBS5KoK63olNZvI/Haji-Ali-Dargah-to-Supreme-Court-Will-grant-access-to-women.html.Google Scholar
Wechsler, Herbert. “Toward Neutral Principles of Constitutional Law.Harvard Law Review 73, no. 1 (1959): 135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
US CASES AND DOCUMENTSGoogle Scholar
Brown v. Board of Educ. of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).Google Scholar
Northern Securities Co. v. U.S., 193 U.S. 197 (1904).Google Scholar
INDIAN CASES AND DOCUMENTSGoogle Scholar
Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta v. Comm’r of Police, Calcutta, AIR 1984 SC 51 (1983).Google Scholar
ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, (1976) 2 SCC 521.Google Scholar
Comm’r of Police, Calcutta v. Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta, Civ. App. No. 6230 of 1990 SC (Mar. 11, 2004).Google Scholar
Durgah Comm., Ajmer v. Syed Hussain Ali, AIR 1961 SC 1402.Google Scholar
Indian Young Lawyers Ass’n v. State of Kerala, Brief of Respondent No. 19 (Raja of Pandalam), WP (Civil) No. 373 of 2006 SC (July 26, 2017).Google Scholar
Indian Young Lawyers Ass’n v. State of Kerala, Brief of Intervenor-Applicant No. 30 of 2016 (People for Dharma), Writ Petition (Civ.) No. 373 of 2006 SC (on file with author).Google Scholar
Indian Young Lawyers Ass’n v. State of Kerala, Writ Petition by Indian Young Lawyers Association, Writ Petition (Civ.) No. 373 of 2006 SC.Google Scholar
Indian Young Lawyers Ass’n v. State of Kerala, Brief of Intervenor-Applicant No. 30 of 2016 (People for Dharma) in Writ Petition (Civ.) No. 373 of 2006 SC.Google Scholar
Indian Young Lawyers Ass’n v. State of Kerala, Brief of Respondent No. 6 (Nair Service Society) in Writ Petition (Civ.) No. 373 of 2006 SC.Google Scholar
Indian Young Lawyers Ass’n v. State of Kerala, Writ Petition (Civ.) No. 373 of 2006 SC (Sept. 28, 2018).Google Scholar
In re Indian Young Lawyers Ass’n v. State of Kerala and In re Nikita Azad (Arora), Intervention Appl. No. 10 of 2016 in Writ Petition (Civ.) No. 373 of 2006 SC.Google Scholar
Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225.Google Scholar
Nat’l Legal Servs. Auth. v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civ.) No. 604 of 2013 SC (Apr. 15, 2014).Google Scholar
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) SCC OnLine SC 1350.Google Scholar
Niaz v. State of Maharashtra, PIL No. 106 of 2014 HC Bom (Aug. 26, 2016).Google Scholar
Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) SCC OnLine SC 996.Google Scholar
S. Mahendran v. The Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board, AIR 1993 Ker 42.Google Scholar
Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., Crim. App. No. 366 of 2018 (Mar. 8, 2018).Google Scholar
Shastri Yagnapurushdasji v. Muldas Bhudardas Vaishya, AIR 1966 SC 1119.Google Scholar
S.P. Mittal v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCR 729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sri Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore, AIR 1958 SC 255 (1957).Google Scholar
Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Admin., (2009) 9 SCC 1.Google Scholar
The Comm’r, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Shirur Mutt, AIR 1954 SC 282.Google Scholar
India Const. Part III: Fundamental Rights, Arts. 15, 25, 26.Google Scholar
2
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Just Hindus
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Just Hindus
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Just Hindus
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *