ESSENTIAL RELIGIOUS PRACTICE TEST: ARTICLES 25 & 26 IN LIGHT OF THE SABARIMALA JUDGMENT (MEETING)5/3/2020 (Saumitra Shrivastava, a Core member of PCLS is a fifth year student at HNLU)
PCLS-HNLU Chapter conducted an introductory session on the Sabrimala judgment review and following are a few talking points: 1. Whether such a 'review' was legal and comes within the scope of the review defined by law of the land. 2. The judgment based itself significantly upon the ERP(Essential Religious Practice) Test which essentially provides that a religious practice if essential to a religion would not be the subject of constitutional scrutiny. 3. The fundamental controversy is whether the right to equality(Art.14) will trump over right to religion(Art. 25 and 26). And how can individual right to religion(right of women in menstruating age) will be affected by religious denomination's(rights of sect of Lord Ayyappan worshippers) right to regulate religion? 4. Justice Chandrachud's anti-exclusion rule and Justice Indu Malhotra's dissent 5. The difference between essential religious practice test and essentially religious test and which one is more suitable in Indian context. We'll be doing more sessions on the same. Also we will post links to articles dealing with the issue. Let us know in comments as to what do you think of the issue. Keep engaging! Keep reading!
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
September 2020
Categories |