BJP stand on Sabarimala and triple talaq is hypocritical, says Soli Sorabjee

Illustration by ThePrint Team

The day court looks away when there is a violation of a fundamental right it would be a sad day for the country, says the eminent jurist.

New Delhi: At a time when the Bharatiya Janata Party has intensified its campaign against the Supreme Court order on the entry of women into Sabarimala temple in Kerala, senior jurist Soli Sorabjee has accused the party of hypocrisy.

Given that the party welcomed the top court’s 2017 judgment banning the practice of triple talaq prevalent among some sections of the Muslim community, it should also welcome the order on Sabarimala, he said in an interview to ThePrint Friday. Not doing so was “hypocritical”, he said

“If triple talaq interference was good, then Sabarimala interference is equally good,” he said.

Asked if the court should refrain from interfering in matters of faith, Sorabjee said, the day the court looks away when there is a violation of a fundamental right, and says it cannot do anything about it, would be “a sad day for the country”.

The entire premise to not allow menstruating women from entering the temple is “irrational” and violative of their right to pray, he added.

 

While the court can choose to not interfere in matters of procedure, “but if matters of faith contravene some provisions of the Constitution, then naturally the court has to come to the rescue of the people who have been discriminated against,” he added.

In September this year, the top court ended a centuries-old ban on women between 10 years and 50 years to enter Sabarimala. The exclusion on the basis of biological and physiological features was unconstitutional and discriminatory, the court said in a 4:1 majority verdict.

‘Court cannot be a mute spectator’

“Of course, the court must be cautious and circumspect, but when there is a violation of a fundamental right of the people, the court has a duty to intervene,” he said.

At a time when political parties such as the BJP and Congress have upped the ante against the judgment, and several review petitions have been admitted in the court, Sorabjee said, “It can’t remain a silent spectator because some people will criticise it or political parties will raise a furore.”

Asked if he saw any merit in Justice Indu Malhotra’s dissenting judgment in the case, Sorabjee said, “I don’t agree with her judgment but just the fact that Indu Malhotra – a so-called junior judge, in the sense that she was just elevated to the Supreme Court – took a different view showed the independence of the judiciary.”

“I salute Indu Malhotra for her brave dissent, even though I don’t agree with her conclusions.”

 

On the cracker ban

Attacking the government for its “inaction” on implementing the cracker ban imposed by the Supreme Court, Sorabjee said, the court cannot stop passing the correct orders because the government does not want to implement them due to political considerations.

“If orders are unimplementable that does not mean the Supreme Court should not pass the correct order,” he said.

“The duty of implementing an order is that of the executive. If they are afraid to do it because of popular reaction or popular sentiment, does not mean the Supreme Court does not pass orders when it is required to pass them,” Sorabjee said.

Further stating that it is incorrect to accuse the court of overstepping its boundaries, he said, “Supreme Court is one institution in the country which is really the guardian of the fundamental rights of our people irrespective of race, religion and caste, and to criticise it in this manner is very unfortunate.”