The Centre, too, in written submissions filed Monday opposed the 2018 Sabarimala judgment saying it has “several … errors which are apparent on the face of the record”.In contrast to its earlier stand, Kerala’s ruling Left Democratic Front government on Monday backed pleas for review of the Supreme Court’s 2018 Sabarimala judgment that removed the age restrictions on entry of women to the hill shrine.The Advocate on Record for the Kerala government, Nishe Rajen Shonker, in a letter to nodal counsel for the review petitioners Advocate Krishna Kumar Singh said that the state in its written submissions, “is supporting the case of the Review Petitioner” and requested that its name be therefore “included on the side of the Review Petitioner and to grant time of one hour to address arguments so as to assist the Hon’ble Court on the issues involved”.The letter comes a day ahead of Tuesday’s scheduled hearing by a nine-Judge Constitution Bench of constitutional questions arising out of the review petitions.Meanwhile, the Centre, too, in written submissions filed Monday opposed the 2018 Sabarimala judgment saying it has “several … errors which are apparent on the face of the record”.The submissions by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that “in the Sabarimala judgment” the majority “opinions not only wrongly declared Ayyapan devotees not to fall within the definition of ‘denomination’ but failed to even deal with the expression “or a section thereof”.”This, the Centre said, “assumes particular importance in the Indian context because religions in India, especially Hinduism, are marked by deep internal diversity. Hinduism has historically accommodated multiple streams of thought, forms of worship, ritual practices, local traditions, philosophical schools, temple traditions and ‘sampradayas’ and even village deities. Therefore, constitutional adjudication must account for plurality within religion and not proceed on the assumption that every religion has only one uniform set of beliefs and practices”.ExplainedRole reversalIn written submissions filed on March 14, the Kerala government called for “wide consultations” before any change is made to the “religious practice followed for so many years”. This was interpreted as a significant climbdown given that the state had earlier supported the September 28, 2018, decision of a five-Judge bench to allow the entry of all women, irrespective of their age, to the temple.The government said that “so far as ‘Hinduism’ is concerned, almost all previous judgments have fallen into error by considering ‘Hinduism’ per se as a ‘denomination’ without examining the vastness, depth and width of what is included in Hinduism by the very unique nature of its features”.Story continues below this adUnderlining the diversity of Hinduism, Mehta said that “the religious practice of restricting the entry of women aged 10-50 to Sabarimala is rooted in the unique nature of the deity, i.e., Lord Ayyappa, who is worshipped in the form of a Naishtika Brahmachari (eternal celibate). The exclusion is not rooted in notions of impurity or inferiority of women but flows from the very character and the attribute of the deity being worshipped. Permitting entry would fundamentally alter the nature and character of worship at this particular temple, thereby undermining rather than advancing public morality in the context of religious pluralism, a value the Constitution itself protects. The public interest would then lie in preserving the rich diversity of religious practices across the country rather than imposing a single, homogenised standard of worship on all temples”.Ananthakrishnan G. is a Senior Assistant Editor with The Indian Express. He has been in the field for over 23 years, kicking off his journalism career as a freelancer in the late nineties with bylines in The Hindu. A graduate in law, he practised in the District judiciary in Kerala for about two years before switching to journalism. His first permanent assignment was with The Press Trust of India in Delhi where he was assigned to cover the lower courts and various commissions of inquiry. He reported from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India during his first stint with The Indian Express in 2005-2006. Currently, in his second stint with The Indian Express, he reports from the Supreme Court and writes on topics related to law and the administration of justice. Legal reporting is his forte though he has extensive experience in political and community reporting too, having spent a decade as Kerala state correspondent, The Times of India and The Telegraph. He is a stickler for facts and has several impactful stories to his credit. ... Read More © The Indian Express Pvt LtdTags:Sabarimalasabarimala issue