Oops! It appears that you have disabled your Javascript. In order for you to see this page as it is meant to appear, we ask that you please re-enable your Javascript!
    | | Contact: 8407908145 |
    Published On : Tue, Nov 27th, 2018

    Society yet to let go menace of untouchability, says Shreehari Aney

    Nagpur: “People play vital role in upholding any constitutional law. Social change can be only achieved with the assistance of the people. It was society who welcomed the abolishing of Sati Pratha however the same society is yet to let go of the menace of untouchability,” said senior advocate Shreehari Aney here on Monday.

    Aney was delivering a key note address on ‘Right to Religion and the Sabrimala Judgment’ organized at the Nagpur High Court Auditorium while Adv Anil Kilor, president, Adv P B Patil, vice president and Adv P S Kumbhalkar, secretary from High Court Bar Association were present on dais.

    “Sabarimala judgment was the case of pure conflict between religions and secular law. The apex court found the practice discriminatory in nature; against the equality and that it violates women’s right to pray and lifted the ban on Sep 28, 2018. However even with this verdict, we are not out of woods. The debate is not over but took a pause and in time many sensitive chapters will open soon followed by Sabarimala judgment,” asserted former advocate general of the state on this occasion.

    While discussing the details which laid the foundation of this historic judgment and also the drawing attention towards the few mistake commited by the court judges, the senior advocate took all attendees to a journey comprising all the incidents right from Srirulmat verdict of SC in 1954 to Sabarimala in 2018.

    Religion vs Court
    In 1954, Supreme Court proposed that the head of the respective religion has the right to decide, sort and convey any decisions within it, which according to him started the decades long struggle of this judgment. However while overruling this decision in 1961, court specified that all the practice are not essential or integral to any religion.

    In Tirupati Balaji case, court reward the state the right to interfere in religious matter. Without taking in account that the public and individual right could vary.
    Court gave milestone decisio in commissioner of police vs acharya Jagdish case while defining the essential ritual where it specifically told that if you took away ritual from a specific religion and that religion is still manage to survive then that ritual could be eliminated.
    And these all cases lead the foundation of Sabarimala verdict in 2018, mentioned Aney and added that this is not the end of Sabarimala case but the onset of new era.

    – By Shubham Nagdeve


    Stay Updated : Download Our App
    Mo. 8407908145