The Petitioner States The Following: Fill & Download for Free

If Supreme Court can lift a ban on entry of women into the Lord Ayyappa temple in Sabarimala, then why Kerala High Court dismisses plea for allowing Muslim women in mosques? Isn't this discrimination violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution?Ans: Simple… The petitioners have no locus standi in the case.The concept of PIL or Public Interest Litigation is simple. You can file a PIL for benefit of larger social good in which you too must be a person aggrieved out of it or beneficiary if otherwise.In simple words, I can file a PIL, only if I believe, the case is to help a much larger society or social cause in which I will too be included. I cannot file a case which has nothing to do with me in a remote way.This particular case was filed by one Swamy Dethathreya Sai Swaroop Nath who claims to be President of State unit of Akhila Bharatha Hindu Maha Sabha. The prayer was“Muslim Women were discriminated against by not allowing them to enter and pray in mosques in the main prayer hall of the mosque which must be removed as it violates Article 21 and 14 of Indian Constitution.”The court has asked him to explain his Locus standi in the case.In what capacity is he filing this case? Does he belong to the Muslim community? Is he an affected woman? Is anyone related to him directly being affected? In what way does he represent a Muslim Woman?The following is the copy of the verdict.The key part of why this case was dismissed becausePetitioners had no right to claim on behalf of Muslim Women. They weren’t even from that community to claim soThe petitioners didn’t file any record of evidence that women being denied into the masjid. Mere hearsay won’t be enough. There should be sufficient proof and specific details as such. They should have presented the details of specific Masjid where women being denied and sufficient documents that suggest that. Either in form of a circular of Masjid or a photo of a rule pasted outside or in form of any written code or statute book etc. Without any evidence, how can a court pass a verdict?The petitioners seem to file this case as a matter of knee-jerk reaction to counter and create a narrative among hardcore Hindutva members. It has nothing to do with the actual welfare of the community mentioned in the petition and it's more likely meant for media attention and social media discussion. Courts are not meant for such purposes.These are three major reasons why the petition was rejected.Kerala HC Dismisses Akhila Bharat Hindu Mahasabha’s Plea For Muslim Women’s Entry To Mosques [Read Judgment] | Live LawIts not comparable to Sabarimala case asIt was filed by 6 Hindu ladies namely Bhakti Pasrija Sethi (who was the general secretary of Indian Young Lawyers Association in 2006 at the time of case filing), Prerna Kumari, Alka Sharma, Sudha Pal, Laxmi Shastri. All these ladies were practicing Hindus and they have the right to seek justice related to their own religion.They filed the case, as they themselves are part of the aggrieved community (ie Ladies). If Bhakti Pasrija or Lakshmi Shastri want to visit Sabarimala, they can’t due to the existence of the previous law. So they proved, they themselves have a reason to file a case and a verdict in their favor could make them a direct beneficiary. So they have a clear LOCUS STANDI.There is no concept of territorial jurisdiction for Hindu community. Any Hindu can question unjust laws and system prevailing in any part of India. I as a Malayalee can question an unjust law if prevailing in Kashi Vishwanath temple or Badrinath temple. The concept of devotion cannot be restricted exclusively to people of one region. UP state citizens cannot claim as Kashi Temple is in UP, they are the only true devotees. There is no concept of GUEST DEVOTEEs in Hinduism. Same way, Malayalees cannot claim, they only represent the sentiments of Devotees of Sabarimala. Anyone can be a devotee from any part of India or the world and if they face injustice, they can approach the court. This forms clear reason for PIL.The case was filed in Supreme court as a matter of appeal against another verdict of Kerala High court. The basic petition assumes a character of the appellate petition. Supreme court exists for filing and listening to appeals.Exclusive: Sabarimala petitioners, Bhakti Pasrija Sethi, Prerna Kumari clear the airSo in Sabarimala case, the petitioners had a clear locus standing, which unfortunately the petitioners in this said case do not have.However, this is not a closed chapter. The actual affected party are all set to file a case in the Supreme court.Kerala Muslim women forum to move SC seeking right to pray in mosquesThey are going to make a petition not just seeking an entry into mosques but also filing a petition seeking to appoint women as Imams of the mosque. This is announced by NISA President- VP Zuhra as you can see in the above video clip.After Sabarimala verdict, Muslim women are all set to approach SC demanding entry to mosques, priesthood - FirstpostSee, when this case comes up, there is a clear locus standi in the case. So will be entertained and in all probability, Supreme court will make another landmark verdict as Sabarimala case is a clear precedent for that.

I’ve had quite a number of unforgettable court experiences in my few years of practice. However, one stands out.I was slated to appear in an out-of-state court for a trial with a senior colleague. This is a distance of about 39.5 km kilometers from where I lived so I had to make an early start, especially since I was going by public transport and the roads in that area are notoriously bad. I had just arrived the state and was about to take a cab to court when I was informed I would be appearing solo. So heart in mouth, luggage in hand, I found my way to court.I made it in time, already tired, but luckily about an hour before the court was to sit. My matter was far down the case list so I alternated between going through the file several times and following court proceedings for other matters. There were a number of matrimonial cases on the list and one of them, about three cases before mine was fixed for the adoption of final written addresses. This is usually a walk in the park since the addresses are already written and only need to be adopted, but sometimes with a short oral adumbration. So this lawyer who was in his early thirties by the look of things, asked the court for a reopening of the Petitioner’s case as there was an all-too-important document he needed to tender through the petitioner.The petitioner enters the witness box and is reminded of his earlier oath. He looks like an average young man. Dark in complexion with a buzz cut and dressed informally but smartly. I was privately debating the re-opening of the case and if the reason was sufficient enough.Well, the petitioner was asked some preliminary questions - his name, occupation, the usual. I went back to my own case file, the court proceedings in the background when I heard a ruckus. Apparently, the court had asked the Petitioner when the marriage was conducted and he stammered in answering. Scratch that. He had no answer to it. Bear in mind that this is a matrimonial case and he is presumably asking for a divorce.The judge was livid and asked him repeatedly for his name and if he was indeed the Petitioner on record. He replied affirmatively, standing stock still. The judge asked for his ID card. He said he had none. She then ordered the orderly (pun intended) to search him. The search produced a number of cards and he is a different person entirely.I have heard clear cases of perjury: inconsistencies in witnesses’ testimony, for example. However, this was the first time I was seeing a party being impersonated. I was shocked, the pressing need to read and reread my case file forgotten. I stared, gestured, started a conversation about how shocked I was with the lawyers sitting closest to me, and how some prison time was best suited in the circumstance.The judge, rightly angry, went on about how it was becoming too normal an occurrence in her jurisdiction for parties to be impersonated. I think I was even more shocked by this. She called on an executive of the local bar association to address the court. The Petitioner’s counsel begged, blaming an absent colleague whose brief he was holding. The Petitioner begged and even prostrated. I don’t recall his reason though, but he stated something about being paid for it.It was quite a scene, to say the least. The proceedings after that were, well, underwhelming (including my anxiety-inducing trial).

Because they're basically unconstitutional following the holding in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) which dealt specifically with sodomy laws, but which can reasonably be extended to include adultery laws.As Kennedy said in that case:"The petitioners [Lawrence and Garner] are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime."Adultery is private sexual conduct between consenting adults, and under Lawrence cannot be criminalized.