advertisement
Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan on Monday, 8 October stated that his government would not file a review petition in the Supreme Court, following the latter’s verdict allowing women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala temple.
The chief minister also criticised the Congress and the BJP for being ambiguous about their stand on the conflict, Hindustan Times reported.
He also blamed the RSS for attempting to create chaos in the law and order situation in the state, so as to take advantage of the verdict, the report added.
Clarifying the government’s stance, he said that it wasn’t responsible for the Supreme Court’s verdict as it had not approached the latter with the issue of women’s entry into the temple.
However, he said that when the court asked the government about its take on the issue, the government had said that it supported women’s entry into the temple.
“... The government took the view in light of the changed social scenario in the country. Now, we can’t change our opinion,” he added, Hindustan Times reported.
The chief minister, in his statement, also criticised both the Congress and the BJP for changing their stand on the verdict, after having welcomed it initially, the report added.
Vijayan said that the two parties were playing the blame-game and spreading rumours that it was the state government that is responsible for the verdict.
“As an elected government we are duty-bound to implement the orders of the Supreme Court,” he said, the report added.
The chief minister’s statement came after a new review petition against the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court was filed by the National Ayyappa Devotees (Women’s) Association on Monday, The News Minute reported.
In addition to challenging the judgment based on jurisdictional aspect, the petition also claims the violation of the petitioners’ “fundamental right, namely, liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship, embodied in the preamble to the Constitution; so too Article 25 thereof”, the report added.
The petitioners also quoted Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara, who said that “a judgment of the instant nature is a gross abuse of a procedure named ‘Public Interest Litigation’ (PIL), which was evolved in the early 1980s to render justice to the poor, the illiterate and ignorant who on account of their poverty, illiteracy and other disadvantages, are unable to invoke the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Article 32 and of the high courts under Article 32 and of the high courts under Article 226 of the Constitution”.
The petitioners also reiterated that as devotees of Lord Ayyappa, they were not heard during the hearing of the case and must be heard on all issues of fact and law, The News Minute reported.
(With inputs from Hindustan Times and The News Minute)
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)