Step-By-Step Directions For Filling Out Form 27 Affidavit Of: Fill & Download for Free

There are 2 parts to this answer.First part deals with services for the Delhi citizens.Simple yet brilliant idea of providing 90 services (90 is latest figure) to your doorsteps.Amazing. No running around building to building or floor to floor getting multiple approvals and stamps and stuff like the old days.All the forms and affidavits in one shot to be deposited and and time bound delivery of certificate.Pure brilliance. Try to imagine how many people save how much time every day with this systems. 1.8 crore people do not have to keep coming to sarkari offices day after day and ruin their routine plans just for some certificate.Water - the amount of absolute control the tanker mafia had over the citizens of Delhi over the years was unbelievable. I lived in south Delhi for 27 years - inspite of being the “posh" and “fancy" part of Delhi, every summer - I am not lying - every summer some colony had tankers lined up filling water for them inspite of no major supply problem.In one shot AK sorted out this mafia and gave back water control to people.Now dont get me wrong. Delhi is facing a water crisis year on year like any part of the country and it's no more a state matter rather a national urgency now.And some parts of Delhi have yet to get steady water supply due to different reasons. But I know it's not because of AAP govt. if a line has not been originally laid down by MCD or PWD then it's not really the fault of AAP and they can only start now and they are doing it.Yet on his level, AK has initiated water conservative plans, recycling plants have been set up etc.In a few years ( subject to monsoon quality) Delhi will have adequate water unless a crisis arises.Education- the schools under the state govt have had a major issue of poor quality infrastructure and services.By focusing a big part of the budget on education, AAP has steadily improved the quality of education and infrastructure to the point that for the first time in our lives we have heard of people wanting their kids to study in these schools.Now MCD schools are a separate body and are still dilapidated and messed up. These will take time to improve simply because they do not come directly under state govt. Our constitutional setup created this problem by having different types of schools under different organizations.Roll back of unnecessary fee hikes by pvt schools. Ask any parent, this was a plain and simple extortion racket by school officials to make more money and they had nothing to show as investments in school infrastructure or improvements.AAP pulled the plug on this and demanded accountability of of each hike. All private schools panicked and fell in line.Health - from mohalla clinics, to treatments in hospitals at govt expense including accident victims, MRI and scans at lower prices, appointments for surgeries in hospitals with time bound deadlines, lowering of prices in medical services etc the impact these steps will have on the people is will phenomenal.Health is one of the most expensive part of life and it's not easy to afford it. These steps by the govt go a long way in helping people emotionally and financially.Electricity- year after year Delhi faced massive power cuts that made life miserable for its citizens.With revamping of electricity purchasing, zero tolerance of delays, poor services against the discoms, proper billing and payments, slabs in consumptions so that people can discipline themselves as well as have correct Bill's etc helped Delhi improve drastically.Ignore the criticism of “free" electricity. Barely 5% of Delhi has got free electricity because of consumption less than 200 units. More than 90% of the people consume a higher unit than this and now pay for actual usage against earlier days when meters had errors, arbid billing amounts and poor services.Infrastructure- this is one area that's going to take s long while irrespective of which party is in power.We need a complete revamp of our roads, drains, sidewalks, flyovers etc.This is going to cost a BOMB. And will be a slow procedure since a simple relay of roads or a new flyover is in crores. There is only so much of money that Delhi gets through taxes. Being a semi state they do not get 50% share of GST revenue inspite of being one of the largest contributors to it.imagine if Delhi got 50% of its GST revenue - that's an easy 50000 crores over and above the annual budget.What all improvements Delhi would experience is mind blowing.So one at a time and starting with maintaining the older flyovers, cleaning of drains with mechanical equipment, green plantations etc will be systematic step by step process.Now the 2nd part of the answer.Delhi being a semi state leads to a lot of power vaccuum in the decision making cycle.LG has his own power and depts like police, DDA under him.AAP has there own depts and cannot interfere in other places that are not under him.MCD being an elected body has it's own powers and not answerable to state and in many cases neither to the LG.Ask any dilliwala, Police, DDA and MCD are the three most corrupt and inefficient organizations that effects their daily lives.And none of these are under AAP and and are not accountable to the people directly.Imagine, a public organization not accountable to the people - hilarious.If AAP had these organizations under them Delhi would have seen a phenomenal change for the better. Their way of working, decision making, practical ideas and corrupt free ways of doing things is exactly what we need to be a modern , advanced and sustainable society.Loud and bombastic words and blaming dead people for our problems or some community is never going to help us.Say what you want, a country is not made up of singular fancy ideas based on religion or culture.It's made up of the diversity and inclusiveness of all people to propel the country to great heights.And AAP has its agenda correct in these matters.

Let’s see. The question is simple, do you support the verdict of the Supreme Court?Personally, I stood against women entry and had expressed solidarity with those who defended the customs and practices of the great temple. But legally, I am in no position to obtain a final answer because the final judgment of the Supreme Court is pending, i.e. a nine member constitutional bench is yet to announce its final verdict. So for the time being, this would be an incomplete article and I promise my readers that this would be updated soon as the apex court delivers its order.Until then, we can analyze the legal entities that surround the shrine.(For all those who would like to know in detail about the customs and religious practices associated with Sabarimala, I recommend Sabarimala: Science behind restrictions written by Sinu Joseph.)This article deals with the following legal documents:1. The constitution of India, as on 1April 20192. Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950.3. Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship( Authorization of entry) Act, 19654. Supreme Court Rules, 2013Let us go back three decades into a place situated in Marine Drive, Kochi.It was summer in Kerala when the High Court of the state witnessed an unusual PIL(Public Interest Litigation) filed by S.Mahendran before Judges K. Paripoornan and K. Balanarayana Marar. Little did they know that this was the beginning of a series of legal battles and cases that would send tremors across the entire state.The PIL was unusual in the sense that it asked the court to uphold the acharas, beliefs and customs of the shrine since the Devaswom officers were unable to do so. In the sense, it meant to use articles 25 and 26 against 14 and 15, all fundamental rights.What are those articles?14-Equality before law.—The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.15-Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.25-Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion.-Subject to public order, morality and health, profess, practice and propagate religion.26-Freedom to manage religious affairs.—Subject to public order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right(a) To establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes (b) To manage its own affairs in matters of religion (c) To own and acquire movable and immovable property(d) To administer such property in accordance with law.S Mahendran argued that women was entering the shrine while customs and rituals prohibited it.The court took opinions of the Board, the Government and considered 3 people on behalf of Swamy Ayyappan, the main deity-a. The chief priest or Thantrib. Pandalam Royal Family(Pandalam Kovilakam who keeps the ornaments on the idol and brings it in a procession during makara vilakku and on the third day of makaram(Malayalam calendar), the raja would go to the shrine to be welcomed by the priest(melshanti), all under a 51 day vritham(vow), with a family member accompanying the procession till pamba river.c. An old devotee who used to visit the shrine for years. (Swamy resided in a devotees heart, for he was Swamy himself, Thatvamasi)All of them put forward the argument that the exclusion of women was based on the fact that the deity is a naishtik-bramachari and not any other allegations may claim (yes, menstruation).Also, women as a whole were never excluded. Only a reasonable restriction on a particular age group of 10-50 years was implemented, so that it didn’t violate article 14.(Fun fact: Kummanam Rajashekharan was the State Secretary of Hindu Munnani (Hindu front) during the course of the case)So naturally, the next question is who is a Naishtik Brahmachari and what does he has to do with women?A naishtik brahmachari is a student who accompanies his guru wherever he lives and learns from him. He is not inclined to marriage and has to live as a perpetual student. He is restricted from:a. Gamblingb. Gossipsc. Scandald. Falsehoode. Injury to othersf. Embracingg. (Lustful) eyes on the opposite sex.(Manu Smriti Chapter 2, Sloka 179)Also, every devotee of Swamy, known as Ayyappan or malikappuram need to take a Vritham or penance for 41 days to ascend the 18 holy steps.a. Sexual relationsb. Drinks, smoking etc.c. Living in isolationd. Cooking one’s own foode. Hygiene including bathing twice a day before prayersf. Wearing black mundusg. One meal a dayh. Walking barefoot.On the 41 st day, the Ayyappan takes his irumudikkettu which contains rice and other provisions for his travel, along with a coconut filled with ghee and puja articles and starts his pilgrimage. He ascends the 18 holy steps to reach Sannidhanam, where he obtains darshan of Swamy Ayyappan, who is Bhootanathan.The climb consists of 3000 feet and 13 km through dense forests.Once you follow these and ascend the 18 holy steps, you become Swamy himself.This difference makes Swamy diffrenet from other Shastha deities like Achankovil, Aryankavu and Kulathooppuzha where there are no such restrictions because he is worshipped not in the Naishtik-Brahmachari form.Swamy Ayyappan had all rights as a deity to uphold his Brahmacharya as his fundamental right and the case then diverted to the power of the Thantri and the Devaswom board in the management of the Temple.Who is the Thantri? Is he above the Devaswom board?Thantri is the Chief priest of a temple. He is regarded as a fatherly figure to the deity. The power of the Thantri is well defined that he is the final authority to take a decision on any issue regarding the religious practices and customs as well as rituals and poojas of Sabarimala. His powers were upheld in the subsequent 1993 High Court Judgment that upheld women entry ban. The chief priest was Sri Kantararu Maheshvararu at the time of the judgment.Can Thantri change the rituals of the temple?To your surprise, YES and to another surprise, ONLY HE CAN. In 1969, a new flag staff (dhwajam) was installed, a new ritual padipooja was initiated and the process of breaking coconuts on the 18 holy steps was also discontinued on the advice of the Thantri. (Another ritual, known as devaprasnam is also sought for the amendments)So, what are the powers of the Devaswom board?The powers of the board are well defined under Article 31 of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950. It says thata. Manage the properties of the devaswomb. Arrange for daily worship, conduct and ceremonies and festivalsc. Power of administration but no voice in deciding religious and ritualistic questions.d. keep regular accounts of all receipts and disbursementse. Audit the accounts by auditors appointed by the High Court.So the point is clear, the board have no role in religious matters of the temple (not just Sabarimala, but all temples under the Act). Sadly, boards have been misusing their administrative controls over the past years, with no audit released and gross mismanagement of resources. It has become an accepted fact that Sabarimala temple “feeds” the Travancore Devaswom Board by its annual footfall of 2 million in 1990 to a thunderous 50 million in 2020. The annual revenue set an all-time record of 263 crores in the last season.Was there any legal provisions banning women from entering the temple?Yes. It was included in Rules of the Travancore- Cochin Religious Institutions (Authorization of entry) Act and notifications issued by Travancore Devaswom board in 1955 and 1956.Section 3 of the Act said that Places of worship will be open to all sections and classes of Hindus. (Separate religious denominations could govern their own affairs)Here Hindus are persons belonging to Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh and Jains.Section 4 of the Act said that Order and decorum of the place has to be maintained in accordance with religious rites and other ceremonies. (Practices like untouchability was banned)Keeping these in mind, the rules were formulated. The rules were the people excluded from section 3(offering worship).Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules 1965:Rule 3:a. Non-Hindus are not allowed to enter temple premises (ahindukkalk praveshanamilla).b. Women at such time during which they are by custom and usage not allowed to enter a place of public worship.c. Persons under pollution arising from birth and deaths in families.d. Drunken and disorderly people.e. people suffering from a contagious diseasef. People with unsound mind (exception with proper control and permission from executive authority)g. Professional beggars.Notification by Devaswom board included a request to maintain the sanctity and dignity of Sannidhanam and a decision to prohibit Ayyppans who didn’t observe Vritham and women under the age group 10-50.(Notification issued on 21 October 1955 and 27 November 1956 by the Devaswom board)(Fun Fact: In 1821, the kingdom of Pandalam was added to Travancore. 48 major temples including the Sabarimala temple were also added to Travancore, thus it fell under the Devaswom Board)These were the rules formulated in 1965. Keeping in mind all these provisions and especially rule 3(b), the High Court of Kerala gave the following verdict in 1992, which was ratified again by a division bench in 1993:a. The restrictions on women aged between 10 and 50 years is in accordance with the rituals from time immemorial.b. The restriction does not violate Article 15, 16 and 25 of the Indian Constitution.c. The restriction does not violate Hindu Place of worship Act 1965.d. The government of Kerala has to take all necessary assistance, including Police Force to ensure the restriction is followed.This was the famous S Mahendran v The Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board, Thiruvananthapuram (“Mahendran”) case at the High Court.The situation remained calm and Sannidhanam was in peace, but not for long. In 2006, the case took life once again, now in the Apex Court, on behalf of Indian Young lawyers Association.Before going to their petitions and the judgment, I intend to clarify 2 queries raised by many friends and well wishers1. Marriage story between Swamy and Malikappurathamma(tutelary deity of Pandalam Royal Family)2. Brahmanical patriarchy associated with the temple.3. Malayarayan TribesLet’s start with malikapurathammaThe story is somewhat like this- malikappurathamma expressed her love and desire for marriage to Swamy and since he was under vow of brahmacharya, he refused and gave her a promise that once my sannidhanam(holy shrine) is void of devotees, he shall marry her and to check whether any devotees are there in Sabarimala, malikappurathamma visits Sharamkuthiyal(banyan tree where new devotees put a wooden arrow on pilgrimage) and on seeing that new devotees have arrived, she goes back, broken-hearted.This story have gained widespread popularity and many(special mention to communists) used to mock devotees after the floods of 2018 that no new devotees have reached sabarimala so your Swamy’s brahmacharya is broken and blah blah blah..Manimandapam at Sabarimala: A place where devotees put bhasmam (vibhuti) brought in the irumudikkettu during pilgrimage. That is the place where Swami Ayyappan had attained jeeva Samadhi(total self-collectedness). This manimandapam is located at Malikappuram.(Fun Fact: Malikappurathamma is no one else but Madhura Meenakshi Amma who is no one else but Parvathi devi worshipped as the wife of Lord Sundareshwara who is no one else but Lord Shiva. Madhura Meenakshi Amma is the tutelary deity of Pandalam royal family and since Swamy is the son of Lord Shiva, Madhura Meenakshi amma aka Malikappurathamma is a motherly deity to Swamy)From Makaram 1 to 4, malikappurathamma is said to visit the 18 holy steps and on Makaram 5, she is said to visit the Sharamkuthiyal(banyan tree). What is the true story?It is not malikappurathamma who visits the 18 holy steps and the Sharamkuthiyal. It is Swamy himself who is in the form of Samadhi at Manimandapam who comes in procession to these places during makaram!Wait! Then who sits above the 18 Holy steps? Isn’t he Swamy?The deity who devotees see on ascending the 18 holy steps is Shri Dharma Shastavu whom for legend says Lord Parashu Ram had built 18 temples, including the one at Sabarimala. Swamy Ayyappan is said to have merged his life energy with Dharma Shastav and from that day on, the deity began to be worshipped as Swamy in the form of Naishtik Brahmachari.It is believed that Swamy himself took 41 days vritham before he went to Sabarimala and merged with the deity, Dharma Shastha.(Fact: Swamy is also called as Manikandan as the King of Pandalam found him as a radiant infant on the banks of river Pamba, wearing a bead around his neck)Swamy in Samadhi form is said to come in Vilakkezhunnallath(procession). It starts when members from Kunnakkatt Family in Ranni wakes Swamy from his Samadhi in the first day of Makaram and perfroms Kalamezhuthu(ritualistic art) and the procession starts from Manimandapam to the 18 holy steps where a call for Nayatt(hunting) is performed and the procession returns to Manimandapam and the Kalam(art) is erased. From makaram 1-5, five different forms of Swamy is depicted in the art;1. Balakan- Boy2. Pulivahanan-Sitting atop a tiger(yes the famous image)3. Villali Veeran-A warrior with bow and arrow4. Sarvabharabhooshitan-A man wearing all ornaments5. Samadhi-the form of the deity in Sabarimala, in Chinmudra.From makaram 1-4 Swamy visits the 18 holy steps and on the 5 th day, he visits Sharamkuthiyaal(banyan tree). This procession is known as the famous Makaravilakku!From Pandalam Royal house, a box called Thiruvabharanapetti containing the Thidambu which has the face of Swamy inscribed in it, and his royal signs called as Thalapparamala,Udumbaramala are also brought in for procession, carried on headOnce the procession arrives, the deities called Bhootaganangal(spirits),mountain deites etc. who are Lord Shiva’s companions go to Sharamkuthiyal(banyan) so not to disturb Swamis devotees. Swamy, on being Bhootanadhan(Lord of the bhoota ganas) goes to Sharamkuthi and calls them back. This procession does not have instruments and fires. Then a guruthi pooja is conducted at Manimandapam.Since the procession starts from Manimandapam situated at Malikkapuram, it was mistakenly circulated that it is Malikappuathamma was is in that procession.Also on the fifth day of Makaram, King of Pandalam conducts a ritual known as Kalabhabhishekam and on completion, Sadya(food) called as kalabha sadya is given.(Fun fact: It’s easy to defame Hindu traditions to such an extent even that this Kalabha Sadya was claimed to be Swamy’s Kalyanasadya (banquet dish served in banana leaf after marriage!))So, Swamy is in Jeeva Samadhi and also a Naishtika Brahmachari.Please try to understand traditions and then go with your liberal policy.So, coming to the next question- Stop Brahmanical patriarchy!!Okay. Good. What are the patriarchal methods?a. Untouchability-whether you are Hindu,Christian,Muslim,Brahmana,Kshatriya,Vaishya,Shudra or any other subclass, everyone is equal at the Sannidhanam. If you are a women belonging to age group of 10-50 and you may belong to any caste, you are not allowed also.b. Swamy as a deity- When you ascend the 18 holy steps, you see a message from Sama Veda, Chandyoga Upanishad, saying that “Thatvamasi” Swamy is none other than you! Every male is a Swamy or Ayyappan and every female is a Malikappuram. Even the police force at Sannidhanam are addressed as “Police Ayyappan “. No Namboothiri, Nair, Ezhava etc. exist in Sabarimala.c. Dominance- The color black which represents low,sadness are worn by Ayyappans on Pilgrimage reaching Sannidhanam. I couldn’t find patriarchy anywhere. Also, all people irrespective of religion are welcome at Sannidhanam, which is an epitome of your secularism.d. Ritual- Swamy wakes up hearing Unarthupattu (wake up song) called “Ayyappa Suprabhatam” and goes to Yoga Nidra(state of meditative sleep) hearing Urakkupattu(lullaby) called “Harivarasnam” daily, both sung by a Roman catholic known as Kattssery Joseph Yesudas. I failed to sense brahmanical patriarchy there.So I am asking my readers, where do I find Brahmanical patriarchy at Sabarimala? Please help.And another question on Malayaran Tribes, they are the Chief Oracles(Velichappad) and in charge of lighting Makara Jyothi in Ponnambalamedu. They are present in the forest from 1700s according to surveys.Now, we slipped from Young India Lawyers association. Their case was presented before a 5 member constitutional bench on question that whether articles 25 and 26 could supersede articles 14 and 15 when it came to religion. It was a question of constitutional morality.The five Judges were1. Dipak Mishra, then Chief justice of India2. A M Khanwikar3. R F Nariman4. D Y Chandrachud5. Indu MalhotraOther than Indu Malhotra, all other Judges were of the opinion thata. Sabarimala devotees didn’t constitute a separate religious denomination under article 26 and weren’t entitled to special provisions. They are exclusively Hindus.(a religious denomination must have a distinct identity that can be clearly distinguished from other established religions)b. Article 25(1) has nothing to do with gender. Everyone has the right to practice, profess and propagate religion.c. Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Public Places of worship act is unconstitutional since it is a violation of article 25(1) and article 15(1) and hence it is void. It is a violation of Hindu women’s right to religious belief.d. Public morality or opinion has to be understood in according with constitutional morality. Public order and morality cannot be used to prevent women from entering a religious place.e. The practice of excluding women cannot be counted as an essential part of worship. It will not alter the nature of Hindu religion. Rule 3(b) is not an integral part.f. Social exclusion of women, based on menstrual status is a form of untouchability, which is prohibited under the Constitution.g. The notifications issued by the Devaswom board(mentioned above) are also unconstitutional.The court cannot interfere directly in religious practices, which simply means that the practice of excluding women are still in practice at Sabarimala, which entitled the Thantri to do a Shudhikalasam (purity ritual) and closing the Sannidhanam for the ritual.(which simply means you cannot take legal action against Thantri)ButThe court can interfere in legal matters. The court simply removed the legal support for the practice of excluding women at Sabarimala. Rule 3(b) was declared unconstitutional and removed, thus withdrawing legal support for the achara under the Kerala Hindu Public Places of Worship Act. So suddenly, it became illegal and unconstitutional.What did Justice Indu Malhotra say?a. Article 14, right to equality does not override article 25, freely practice profess and propagate religion.b. Constitutional morality in a secular society should have harmony between fundamental rights, including the practice of religion, whether it is rational, logical or not.c. Devotees of Swamy may constitute a religious denomination- the matter has to be decided before court.d. Excluding women at Sabarimala cannot be equated with untouchability.e. Rule 3(b) is not unconstitutional.Thus with a 4-1 majority, rule 3(b) was declared unconstitutional and what happened on the later stage and associated events was a major source of sorrow for crores of devotees of Swamy. Sannidhanam, a purely religious place, which is the abode of Swamy, bhootanathan, manikandan was turned out to be place of activism, violence, hatred and protest.The writer still remembers IG Sreejith IPS, praying before Swamy with tearful eyes, caught in a tug of war between duty and bhakthi.Why was Kerala Government criticized for its actions at Sabarimala?The Kerala Government came under excessive criticism for the events that happened at Sabarimala due to 3 reasons:a. The judgment of the Court was not one with a directive and an operational part. The response of the government was premature, sudden and disastrous. It didn’t take into consideration the judicial conflicts associated with the case. It should have waited for an expert opinion.(which it did, after Lok Sabha election)b. Affidavit- The big twist in the case; here’s howOn 4 August 2006, Young India lawyers association moves to Supreme Court.On November 13, 2007 the LDF Government under V S Achutanandan gave an affidavit that the government was in favor of women entry.On 2016, then UDF Government under Oommen Chandy changed the affidavit that they stood with the devotees, opposing women entry.On November 7 2016, the LDF government under Pinarayi Vijayan again took a U-turn, changing the affidavit in favor of women entry. Another affidavit was submitted accordingly which stated that 51 women have already entered Sannidhanam and 7,564 have registered in the virtual queue, with events later unfolding showing many false and exaggerated terms.c. Vanitha mathil or wall of women-formed by spending 50 lakh from the exchequerBut even as the Lok Sabha polls were approaching, the Chief Minister said that it wasn’t going to affect and there was no change in Governments policy at Sabarimala.After the Lok Sabha election, the Government was reconsidering its decision and seeking legal advice on further proceedings.But the devotees had to get a permanent solution to their problems as the Sannidhanam was involved in a legal battle. So, it was decided that we pursue the matter in the same democratic way- approach the Supreme Court for reviewing its judgment. It’s similar to DRS in a cricket match.As all of these legislative battles was going on, there was a review petition filed in the apex court. Representing Swamy, Thantri Kantararu Rajeevaru appeared in Court. Along with that, several writ petitions came flying to the court.How are review petitions handled by the Supreme Court?The apex court handles review petitions according to the procedure established under Part-4, Order XLVII of Supreme Court Rules, 2013Also, under article 137, the Supreme Court shall have the power to review any of its judgment.According to the rules, a review petition has to be filed within 30 days of the judgment. There are generally 3 ways in which a petition can result in:a. Dismissal- The review petition can be dismissed as a whole, preserving the original judgment.b. Acceptance- The petition can be accepted and the existing judgment can be revised by the Supreme Court.c. Referring to a larger bench- In cases arising where there is a limitation in Rules, the petition can be accepted but with no revision of Judgment. So it is more like a mix of dismissal and acceptance where the final decision is yet to come but until then the existing judgment prevails.For Sabarimala, the action taken on the review petition was plan c. It was because the review petition was under article 32- right to constitutional remedies. - The right to move to the Supreme Court. So it became necessary to initiate article 142.What is article 142?It is the power of the Supreme Court for doing complete justice in any pending matter and the decision shall be binding and enforceable throughout India.The review and writ petitions came under a 5 member bench comprising ofa. Ranjan Gogoi, then Chief Justiceb. A M Khanwikarc. Indu Malhotrad. R F Narimane. D Y ChandrachudGogoi, Khanwikar and Indu Malhotra ordered for referring to a larger, 9 member constitutional bench and thus, with a 3-2 majority, it was referred to a higher bench.What was the legal issues relating to the 2018 verdict?a. The court struck down rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Public Places of Worship Act 1965 which was for exempting women wherever customs and practices seemed necessary.ButThe rule 3(a) was that non-Hindus are not allowed to enter temples!Sabarimala is a temple that violates rule 3(a) and hence it violates the entire Act, or it is outside jurisdiction of the said Act. A separate legal framework has to be formed for sabarimala. If the court accepts the argument, then the 2018 order stands nullified!b. Kerala High Court order of 1991 and subsequent 1993 division bench ratification had passed its review period. Since nowhere in the Supreme Court order strikes down the high court judgment, it leads to a conflict of judiciary since the High court order can be nullified only by a petition specially challenging it.c. The power of the Thantri(Chief Priest), protected under several judgments of the Kerala High court, may arise in a judicial conflict at Sannidhanam since he is the final authority in case of any religious dispute at Sabarimala.These are the legal constraints of the verdict. The final order of the 9 member constitutional bench is yet to come- I would be updating this article once it is carefully studied.What was the decision on the review petition?a. We have a plurality of religions and practices- so what is essential in one sect of worship in a religion need not be essential for the entire religion or other sect as a whole. But both groups have the same fundamental right- practice, profess and propagate religion. It doesn’t matter if they are a religious denomination or not. (Big relief for us!)b. Not just Sabarimala but,1. Entry of Muslim women in Durgah/Mosque2. Parsi women marrying a non Parsi seeking entry to Agyari(holy fire place)3. Female Genital Mutilation of Dawoodi Bohra communityWill also be considered by the 9 member bench!ATTENTION LIBERALS AND SECULARISTSYou have got a golden chance to prove that you have only one word and you stick to it. Keep supporting women entry of not just Sabarimala but also Muslim women entry into mosques, Parsi women entry etc.OrDo liberalism, human rights, right to worship, fundamental rights, and women rights works only selectively?(Honestly, I feel pity for all of them now!)c. The power of the court to decide in religious matters concerning integral part of a religion will be decided.d. It would also be decided whether Sabarimala comes under Kerala Hindu Public Places of Worship Act 1965.e. The larger bench shall be decided by the Chief Justice of India.What did the other Judges say?Judges Nariman and Chandrachud disagreed with the majority judgement and directed Kerala State government to give wide publicity of the judgment through TV, Newspaper etc. All must be consulted and confidence of the communities should be seeked.Any organized acts or resistance to thwart the judgment must be dealt firmly. Solution for a lasting peace must be seeked. Above all, Rule of Law must prevail.Thus the review petition came out a big sense of relief. Swamy’s Sannidhanam would always be preserved of its holiness and energy.As everyone else, I am also eagerly waiting for the 9 member constitutional bench to deliver its order on the issue. As a K J Yesudas remarked during Sabarimala protest of 2018, “dharma will prevail in Sabarimala” as the inscription under the Apex Court says “ Yatho Dharmasthatho Jaya”.The nine member Constitutional Bench that shall decide on so many important religious matters constitute of:1. Chief Justice SA Bobde2. Justice R Banumathi3. Justice Ashok Bhushan4. Justice L Nageswara Rao5. Justice Mohan M Shantanagoudar6. Justice S Abdul Nazeer7. Justice R Subhash Reddy8. Justice BR Gavai9. Justice Surya KantSo far, I have tried to analyze all the legal and religious frameworks associated with Sannidhanam and I would like to express my sincere gratitude towards:a. Ayyappa Seva Sangham, Kerala State Council.b. Sreejith Panickar, Founder Member of Mission Netajic. Sabarimala Karma SamithiFor standing by millions of devotees including myself and defending our Sannidhanam by all means. I again remind you, this article is incomplete.As in the famous song, Pallikkattu Sabarimalaikku sung by K Veeramani,“Pathinettu padi meethu EeriduvaarGathi endru avarai SaranadaivaarMathi mugam Kannde MayangiduvaarAyyanai thuthikkaiyileThannaiye marandhiduvaar”Once the constitutional bench issues its order, I would be updating my answer with relevant information. My stand is always clear- I am against Sabarimala women entry and I have tried to explain it to you in a way I presume the issue. You are free to contact me for any corrections and /or clarifications.Swamiye Saranam AyyappaSatyameva JayateHarisankar Arun

He is the most bindass politician i have ever seen in terms of filling court petition.I don't think so we have any other politician like him to who has guts to take the illegal matters to the court.Its better to know him via him court petition rather then his personal life.BJP Muse be proud of himHe was the person who filled:Complaint against JayalalithaIn 1996, Swamy had filed a criminal complaint against Jayalalitha which led to her prosecution where she was convicted and sentenced for four years imprisonment. Later, on May 11, 2015, a special Bench of the Karnataka High Court set aside the trial court order convicting former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa and acquitted of all charges in the disproportionate assets case.Phone tapping allegationSwamy had released the letter alleging that former intelligence chief had asked DoT to tap the phone of many politicians and businessmen in Karnataka,the then Chief Minister, Ramakrishna Hegde resigned in 1988.Hegde then filed a case against him in 1989 and 1990.Hashimpura massacreMain article: Hashimpura massacreIn 1987, when Muslim youths were killed under police custody, Swamy spoke against it and sat on a fast for more than a week in Jantar Mantar demanding the institution of an inquiry.After 25 years he started pursuing the case once again in court.Rebecca John, a counsel for the Hashimpura complainants, told Additional Sessions Judge Rakesh Siddhartha who is conducting the trial in the case, that "there is no other motive than politics behind Swamy's plea for further investigation and it would only further delay the trial".Role in exposing 2G spectrum scamMain article: 2G spectrum scamIn November 2008, Subramanian Swamy amongst others wrote the first of five letters to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh seeking permission to prosecute A. Raja in regard to2G spectrum scam.However, Singh took no action,leading Swamy to file a case on his own in the Supreme Court of India regarding the matter, which then asked theCentral Bureau of Investigation to produce a detailed report on it.He further called on the Indian government to re-auction the 2G spectrum without the involvement of Communications Minister Kapil Sibal.Swamy has raised allegations that Sonia Gandhi's sisters Anushka and Nadia have received sixty percent of the kickbacks in the 2G spectrum scam, amounting to ₹180 billion(US$2.7 billion) each.On 15 April 2011, he filed a 206-page petition with PM Singh seeking permission to prosecute Mrs. Gandhi. In the petition, he claimed to have strong evidence of corrupt acts committed by Mrs. Gandhi as early as 1972; he also raised doubts regarding her acquisition of Indian citizenship.At a lecture on corruption given on 29 May 2011, Swamy repeated his allegation against Sonia Gandhi, saying she has Rs. 1 trillion (short scale) stashed abroad.Swamy filed documents in the court to prosecute Minister of Home Affairs P. Chidambaram by including a 15 January 2008 letter written by Chidambaram to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Swamy also placed on record the certified copy of the minutes of a meeting between Chidambaram, Raja and the prime minister during the tenure of Raja as the MOC&IT.Since criminal charges were filed against the accused, but no evidence was given by Swamy or the CBI, all the respondents have got bail as of July 2012.Sanction to prosecute telecom minister A. RajaOn 31 January 2012, the Supreme Court of India accepted Swamy's petition against the Prime Minister's Office in the 2G case, saying that all public authorities should give a sanction within three months against any public official if a request is made for prosecution.The Supreme Court said that Subramanian Swamy had the locus standi to seek sanction from the Prime Minister for the prosecution of A Raja in the 2G scam. Sanction by a competent authority for the prosecution of a public servant has to be granted within a time frame, the apex court said. Justice AK Ganguly said that the sanction would be deemed to be granted if competent authority failed to take a decision within four months.Swamy's arguments were that he wrote to the PMO on 29 November 2008, but it was only on 19 March 2010 the PMO replied that the plea made by Swamy was "premature" as investigation was being carried out by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Raja was arrested by the CBI in the case and got bail on 15 May 2012 after spending nearly 15 months in the Tihar Central Jail.Petition to strike down "single directive provision"In 1997, Swamy filed a petition in the Supreme Court of India to strike down a provision which barred CBI from investigating corruption charges against officers of the rank of joint secretary and above without prior permission of the Govt of India called as "Dr. Subramanian Swamy Versus Director, Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr."On 6 May 2014, a five-judge constitution bench held the single directive provision as invalid and unconstitutional. The court said that "Protection of prior approval for probing graft charges against officers at level of joint secretary and above has propensity of shielding corruption"Experts such as former CBI Director Joginder Singh praised the judgement as "Superb".Incumbent CBI Director Ranjit Sinha welcomed the judgement and said, "now a very heavy responsibility has been cast upon us to ensure that no innocent civil-servant is harassed."Nataraja Temple CaseSubramanian Swamy had filed a petition in the Supreme Court with priests of the dikshithar sect challenging the decision of the Madras High Court on transferring the administration of the Nataraja temple to the then Tamil Nadu government in 2009.Swamy on referring to the provisions of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, contended that Podu Dikshitars have right to administer the templeand argued on handing over the administration on mismanagement grounds of temple's wealth is violation under article 26 of the Constitution of India.On 6 January 2014 the Supreme Court ruled that the administration is to be handed over back to the priests of the temple from the state government.Investigation on EVMFurther information: Indian voting machinesSubramanian Swamy demanded that an independent committee should be formed to check the security and safety of the Electronic Voting Machines (EVM) to avoid any rigging or tampering. He argued that countries like US, Japan, UK, Germany and Netherlands have abandoned EVMs and are using paper-ballot system and demanded that a printed receipt should be given to every voter after casting the vote.His PIL to investigate the working of EVM was dismissed by the Delhi High Court on 17 January 2012. The court refused to give any direction to the Election Commission to bring back paper-ballot system or use of printed receipts. The Commission argued that the use of paper is not feasible due to the huge size of Indian electorate. The court further asked the Election Commission to "immediately begin a process of wider consultations" and the Parliament "to go into this question in depth and decide".On 22 January 2013 the Election Commission informed the Supreme Court that it would include Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) system which is in the testing phase after the court agreed with some points raised by Swamy who was the contender,in the machines so that every voter will come to know who he/she is voting by getting a printed slip after pressing the EVM button.The voter paper audit trail has then been in use from 4 September 2013.On 8 October 2013 the Supreme Court directed the Election Commission to implement audit trail system in 2014 general election in phases.Campaign against black moneyHe has been the original campaigner against corruption by bringing into light the 2G scam which he has been fighting relentlessly and indefatigably in the courts.The scam created public opinion against corruption and created awareness.This 2G scam shattered the credentials and integrity of the UPA government . He had founded Action Committee Against Corruption in India (ACACI) on 14 October 2011 along with other known people and has acted as a chairperson. ACACI's goal is to take specific action against corruption at very high places of government and Indian black money stashed abroad,Swamy had mentioned six simple steps in his letter which may recover the money stashed abroad easily.Views on KashmirIn September 2008, Swamy stridently retorted against the contentions of some Indian columnists who voiced their opinions in favor of "peacefully" surrendering Kashmir to Pakistan. He said,Allegations against Nehru-Gandhi familySonia Gandhi's false affidavit to Election CommissionSonia Gandhi had submitted an affidavit to the Election Commission of India citing a false degree. In 2004, Subramanian Swamy filed a case in a High Court, which enabled the judges to stop others from filing similar cases. Swamy had clarified in the petition that his complaint against Ms. Gandhi was for imposing a penalty on her but not for disqualifying her from participating in the election. Sonia Gandhi admitted it was a "mistake" and apologised, upon which the judge ordered closure of the case without penalty.National Herald caseOn 1 November 2012 Swamy alleged that both Sonia and Rahul Gandhi have committed fraud and land grabbing to a tune of ₹20 billion (US$300 million) by acquiring a public limited company called Associated Journals Private Ltd (AJPL) through their owned private company, Young Indiawhich was formed on 23 November, 2010.Through this they had got publication rights of National Herald and Quami Awaz newspapers, with real estate properties in Delhi and Uttar Pradesh.The acquired place was intended only for newspaper purposes but were used for running a passport office, amounting to lakhs of rupees, it alleges.Swamy further added that Rahul Gandhi hid the facts in his affidavit while filing nomination for the 2009 Lok Sabha elections.It further alleges that on 26 February 2011 AJPL approved the transfer of unsecured loan of ₹900 million (US$13 million) from the All India Congress Committee at zero interest.Subramanian argued that it is illegal for any political party to lend the loan as per violation of Section 269T of Income Tax Act 1961.On 2 November, the party responded that the loan was given only for reviving National Herald newspaper with no commercial interest.Swamy decided to approach the Supreme Court for de-recognising the Congress party, while the Election Commission ordered the probe on 17 November 2012.The hearing of the case had been taken up thereafter on different occasionsand on 1 August 2014 the Enforcement Directorate initiated probe to find any money laundering in the casewhile on the same day Swamy was served notice by the High Court.On 28 August the metropolitan court fixed 9 December for the next hearing of the case,while on 12 January 2015 the judge of the Delhi High Court recused himself from hearing the case stating that schedule of cases has been changed and directed that the petitions be directed before an appropriate bench.On 27 January 2015, the Supreme Court asked Swamy to make out a case for the speedy trial in the Delhi High Court since the petition cannot be heard directly.On 18 September, 2015 it was reported that the Enforcement Directorate had reopened the investigation.On 8 December, 2015 a Delhi Court asked Sonia and Rahul Gandhi and five others to appear before it on 19 December.Lastly, He doesn't have Z security after all this petition.