- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
SC hears entry of Muslim women into mosques case only because of Sabarimala judgment
In the petition seeking entry of Muslim women into mosques, the Supreme Court has issued notice to the Central government and the All India Muslim Personal Law Board .A Bench of Justices SA Bobde and S Abdul Nazeer remarked before issuing notice, “We are hearing you because of Sabarimala judgment.”The Court quizzed the petitioners’ counsel, Advocate Ashutosh Dubey, on...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
In the petition seeking entry of Muslim women into mosques, the Supreme Court has issued notice to the Central government and the All India Muslim Personal Law Board .A Bench of Justices SA Bobde and S Abdul Nazeer remarked before issuing notice, “We are hearing you because of Sabarimala judgment.”
The Court quizzed the petitioners’ counsel, Advocate Ashutosh Dubey, on various aspects.
Justice Bobde asked, “Have you tried to enter, has anybody prevented you? Are there other mosques where women are permitted to enter,” Justice Bobde asked. To this Dubey gave the example of Mecca. Justice Bobde questioned if the Right to Equality under Article 14 could be claimed against non-state actors.
The court asked, “Can a fundamental right to equality be asserted against another Human Being/ individual? Will Article 14 apply to individual and can you claim equality of treatment from another human being? You don’t want somebody to enter your house, can that person call for police help and enter your house?” While issuing notice, Justice Bobdestated that the only reason the Court will hear this matter was owing to the judgment in the Sabarimala case.