A three-judge Bench of India’s apex court, comprising of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Deepak Gupta, and Justice Aniruddha Bose said the petition filed by the right-wing All India Hindu Mahasabha (Akhil Bharath Hindu Mahasabha) had no merit.
A section of netizens was left stunned to see the Supreme Court of India, which gave its verdict in the case of the rights of women to enter otherwise barred-for-women Hindu temples, not coming up with similar directions for Muslim women.
Those criticizing Monday’s ruling by the apex court said the court was contradicting its own order of September 2018, when it had ruled that women of all age groups could enter the Sabarimala Temple in Kerala, and freely practise the Hindu religion and exhibit their devotion and worship towards the presiding deity Lord Ayyappa.
The then verdict was passed with a 4-1 majority, with Chief Justice Dipak Misra, and Justices A. M. Khanwilkar, R. F. Nariman and D. Y. Chandrachud in favour of permitting women to enter the temple, while Justice Indu Malhotra dissented. The Supreme Court then observed that the custom of barring women was in violation of Article 25 (Clause 1) and Rule 3(b) of Kerala Hindu Places of Worship.
SC deserves an explanation on what basis PIL was DISMISSED. And why was Sabarimala PIL considered? https://t.co/LP8p6w0DW8
— Venkatesh Krishnamoorthi 🇮🇳 (@cyberstentorian) July 8, 2019
Here we go again...
— Shekhar Gupta (@ShekharGupta) July 8, 2019
One Constitution, one court, similar questions..
2 contrary orders..
SC now junks plea seeking entry of Muslim women in mosques using argument similar to Sabarimala dissenting judge’s...@MandhaniApoorva reportshttps://t.co/MH40chsvPe
Yasmeen Zuber & Ahmad Peerzade aren't Muslims ?
— Pramendra Gupta (@PramendraGupta1) July 8, 2019
CJI & SCI need the certificate & permission of Arabs & ISI to make them real Muslims ?
Citation of Sabarimala case & Article 14 of the Constitution was enough to provide permission
It's biased like 👇Judgement pic.twitter.com/KXdlkfkdZ2
Same analogy was not applied for sabarimala! Why?
— Anrao (@Anrao84086336) July 8, 2019
Met a devotee who has been visiting Sabarimala for the last 15 years. He said with so much pain,"The so called Secular Govts @ states n center can't even scratch on d walls of Church and Mosque but can keep Hindu Temples under their control. Hindus r the most belittled persons. pic.twitter.com/dd9v6jm8a1
— Dr. IVNS Raju (@ivnsraju65) July 8, 2019
The apex court said, “Let a Muslim woman come, then we will consider."
Monday’s appeal to the Supreme Court was made after the high court in India’s southern Kerala state had rejected a similar appeal.
The appeal was made by Swamy Dethathreya Sai Swaroop Nath, the president of the Kerala unit of the All India Hindu Mahasabha (Akhil Bharath Hindu Mahasabha).
Sai Swaroop Nath also appealed for the removal of the purdah or burqa system, which requires Muslim women to cover their faces.
Some netizens said that people or groups filing such pleas should avoid such sensitive issues, especially those concerning other communities.
Dear Hindu Mahasabha .. Pranam
— Rahul Easwar (@RahulEaswar) July 8, 2019
Pls lets not poke our nose into Muslim affairs. Let our Muslim sis & bros manage their issues
We have a lot of Hindu issues to address, right Sirs ??
This "Revenge attitude for #sabarimala verdict" on Courts is not right
https://t.co/nvm2uZHyVP
Naushad Ahmed Khan was a Muslim who converted to Hinduism to file against Sabarimala! 🤦🏽♂️🤦🏽♂️🤦🏽♂️ @lotophagus @anjaligorg @RahulEaswar
— Muralidharan S (@Muralid71738586) July 8, 2019
'Let a Muslim Woman Challenge It': SC Dismisses Hindu Mahasabha Plea on Mosque Entry https://t.co/D3EgPwQdo0
On Monday, the apex court bench agreed with the Kerala High Court order of 11 October 2018, that the plea was nothing more than an exercise in cheap publicity.
The court ruled that the provisions of Article 226 of the Indian Constitution with regard to the alleged violation of fundamental rights, could not be misused for such purposes.
