The State of Kerala is contemplating enactment of separate legislation for the administration of Sabarimala temple..This was informed by the counsel appearing for the State government to a Bench of Justices NV Ramana, Mohan M Shantanagoudar and Ajay Rastogi..The order passed by the Supreme Court records:.“Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State of Kerala submits that the State is considering enacting a separate legislation with regard to the administration of the Sabarimala Sree Ayyappa Swamy Temple.”.On September 28, 2018, a Constitution Bench of then Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Rohinton Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud, and Indu Malhotra had, by a 4:1 majority, struck down Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 which was the basis for barring entry of women between the ages of 10 and 50 years into the temple..Subsequently, review petitions were filed against the judgment, which were heard by Supreme Court earlier this year. The judgment in the same was reserved on February 6, 2019 and is yet to be pronounced..[Read Order]
The State of Kerala is contemplating enactment of separate legislation for the administration of Sabarimala temple..This was informed by the counsel appearing for the State government to a Bench of Justices NV Ramana, Mohan M Shantanagoudar and Ajay Rastogi..The order passed by the Supreme Court records:.“Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State of Kerala submits that the State is considering enacting a separate legislation with regard to the administration of the Sabarimala Sree Ayyappa Swamy Temple.”.On September 28, 2018, a Constitution Bench of then Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Rohinton Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud, and Indu Malhotra had, by a 4:1 majority, struck down Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 which was the basis for barring entry of women between the ages of 10 and 50 years into the temple..Subsequently, review petitions were filed against the judgment, which were heard by Supreme Court earlier this year. The judgment in the same was reserved on February 6, 2019 and is yet to be pronounced..[Read Order]
