Sabarimala LIVE Updates: All Eyes on Supreme Court as Hearing on Review Petitions Begins



The Kerala High Court, meanwhile, on Tuesday took suo moto cognisance of the violence at Sabarimala Temple after the Supreme Court opened the gates of the shrine to women of all age groups. It has also sought an explanation from the Travancore Devaswom Board.



The SC verdict had led to violent protests at the base camps outside the hill shrine as devotees and several Hindu outfits blocked women from entering the temple when it opened for six days in October.



As the hearings began, a lawyer sought to file a fresh affidavit by a ‘tantri’, asking for open court hearing. Reacting to the same, the CJI said: “You are being unfair to us. Beyond that, we don't want to say anything.”



At least 12 women in the 10-50 age group had made a failed attempt to trek the hills and had to return following the protests. Even women over the age of 50 were stopped at Sabarimala and were only allowed to pass through after showing proof of their age.



The BJP and the Congress both blamed the Pinarayi Vijayan government in Kerala for implementing the verdict in a “hurry” and are taking out protest rallies through the state to protect the “traditions and customs” of the temple. However, the Left government has reiterated that the administration is committed to implementing the court’s September 28 order, but blamed political rivals for politicising the issue.



A review plea by the Nair Service Society (NSS), one of the petitioners, said "without holding that the questions raised related to matters of religion which are not within judicially manageable standards, the majority decision in substance has the effect of holding that the character of the deity can be altered based on individual faith and belief, in violation of the tenets of a particular religion and or religious sect". The petitioners have also alleged that the verdict has "legal errors" and the assumption of the temple practice being based on notions of menstrual impurity is "factually erroneous".



