Skip to main content
Browse Law School Education Constitutional Law Discussion on the Sabarimala Case

Charu Mathur: So that leaves us—if it comes in time, that will leave us with Justice Chandrachud, Justice Indu Malhotra, Justice Rohinton Nariman and Justice Khanwilkar on Bench to decide.

Prashant Padmanabhan: Yes.

Charu Mathur: And Justice Khanwilkar has in this review petition where the order of reference has come, he has shifted his view towards the other side. He is not with Mr Nariman or Chandrachud. He is towards Justice Indu Malhotra, if I can say that.

Prashant Padmanabhan: I am still hopeful. We can’t say like that because, see, according to me, there is a law under Article 25(2).

Charu Mathur: Yes.

Prashant Padmanabhan: The Kerala Legislative Assembly has passed a law and that law is for giving effect to the constitutional provisions for giving entry to all sections of Hindus. So unless the nine-judge Bench is saying that women between the age of 10 and 50 is not a section of Hindus or a class of Hindus—if they are holding that, then the five-judge Bench even if it is the earlier judges, they are bound by that. Otherwise, I believe they will uphold the earlier view, that is my wish.

Charu Mathur: That is your wish because you are from that side.

Prashant Padmanabhan: No, anyway let us await the judgment.

Charu Mathur: Yes. We will await. And whatever discussion we have done is only purely for the academic purpose. And whatever the views from Prashant are, you can take it with a pinch that he is for the entry of women in the Sabarimala temple. You can keep that bias if at all it is there in our conversation.

Thank you so much for coming and having a small conversation with us.

Prashant Padmanabhan: Thank you Charu.

Charu Mathur: Thank you Prashant. Thank you.

Raw HTML