Nagarathna

A Supreme Court bench has said that a woman’s choice needs to put first in all cases where she is seeking an abortion beyond the limit specified by law

The Supreme Court, while hearing a case on gender discrimination in temples, cautioned against relying on information from 'WhatsApp University.' A nine-judge bench, led by the Chief Justice, emphasized that while eminent authors' views are respected, personal opinions are not sufficient for judicial decisions. The court acknowledged the difficulty in defining essential religious practices.

The Supreme Court urged the Centre to consider amending laws to allow rape survivors to terminate pregnancies beyond 20 weeks, emphasizing no time limit in such cases. The bench highlighted the lifelong trauma for a child survivor and the need for the decision to rest with the survivor and her parents, with AIIMS offering counsel.

The Supreme Court refused to postpone hearings on petitions challenging the 2023 law for appointing election commissioners, deeming the matter "more important than any other matter." The court allowed petitioners to begin arguments, emphasizing the significance of the case over other ongoing constitutional benches.

'Parents' Word Will Be Final On 30-Week MTP'

The Supreme Court emphasized that religious institutions must operate under established norms, not anarchy, while hearing cases related to women's entry at places of worship. A nine-judge bench stated that the right to manage a religious institution requires regulation within constitutional limits to prevent discrimination and ensure orderly functioning.

Supreme Court Justice B.V. Nagarathna emphasized that arbitration and mediation are vital to a modern justice system, not just alternatives to court. She noted a gap in addressing complaints against arbitrators, often retired judges, whom courts are hesitant to remove. Maintaining litigant trust is crucial, as bias allegations erode confidence in these dispute resolution methods.

Justice B.V. Nagarathna strongly criticized the historical practice of isolating menstruating women, deeming it a form of "untouchability." While hearing arguments on the Sabarimala temple entry ban, she questioned the validity of such social customs. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta countered, arguing the deity's unique attributes and devotees' faith should not be tested by gender equality standards.

The Supreme Court expressed concern over sect-based temple restrictions, warning they could harm Hinduism and divide society. A nine-judge bench heard arguments on religious freedom versus state power to open temples, with judges questioning exclusions that might negatively impact the religion and its followers.

The Supreme Court questioned if non-devotees can challenge Sabarimala Temple customs, highlighting the maintainability of PILs filed by those without a direct connection. The bench considered whether individuals outside a religious denomination should be allowed to question its practices, especially in cases like the Sabarimala women's entry issue.

The Supreme Court expressed concern over the misuse of Public Interest Litigation for personal agendas, suggesting it would have dismissed a PIL challenging the Sabarimala custom. Justices noted that such challenges, if not brought by devotees, lack cause of action. The court emphasized the need for strict locus standi rules to prevent PIL abuse, especially in religious matters.