On Wednesday, the Supreme Court had delivered a judgment upholding the constitutional validity of Aadhaar act. The sole dissenting voice on the bench was of Justice D Y Chandrachud. Immediately after the verdict, he became the blue-eyed boy of the Liberal-Leftist cabal. The cabal hailed him as some sort of messiah and his dissent was termed as the “dissent for the ages”. For the cabal, his dissent mattered more than the actual verdict. They were reacting as if his dissent is the actual verdict.
In today’s Bhima Koregaon case judgment, it’s again D Y Chandrachud who was the sole dissenter. The cabal again extolled him for his dissent and authored tweets and write-ups praising him for his dissenting voice.
However, in today’s verdict on entry of women in Sabarimala, while three judges (including the Chief Justice- Dipak Misra) gave nod to entry of women in the temple, the sole voice of dissent came from Justice Indu Malhotra who said, “Issues of deep religious sentiments should not be ordinarily be interfered by the Court.” She also said, “Notions of rationality cannot be brought into matters of religion.”
Issues of deep religious sentiments should not be ordinarily be interfered by the Court: Justice Indu malhotra in her dissenting opinion
— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) September 28, 2018
Her Ladyship, d sole woman, Ms. Indu Malhotra,is d sole voice of dissent & agrees with d position of the #ReadytoWait campaign in principle.Her Ladyship has acknowledged that there exists a distinction between diversity and discrimination.I rest my case. Swamiye Saranam Ayyappa!
— Sai Deepak J (@jsaideepak) September 28, 2018
Her Ladyship observed, “What constitutes essential religious practice is for the religious community to decide, not for the court. India is a diverse country. Constitutional morality would allow all to practise their beliefs. The court should not interfere unless if there is any aggrieved person from that section or religion.” She further added, “Present judgment won’t be limited to Sabarimala, it will have wide ramifications. Issues of deep religious sentiments shouldn’t be ordinarily interfered into.”
Justice, Indu Malhotra also observed, “Religious practices can’t solely be tested on the basis of the right to equality. It’s up to the worshippers, not the court to decide what’s religion’s essential practice.”
However, unlike, D Y Chandrachud, Justice Malhotra received vehement criticism from the cabal. The cabal found her dissent shocking and expressed sadness over her dissent.
Shocking statements by J Indu Malhotra. https://t.co/zfcEMvVIWs
— nikhil wagle (@waglenikhil) September 28, 2018
My minor crush on the Supreme Court could become major at this rate :-) Thank you . Menstruating Women can no longer be barred from #Sabarimala – Bleeding is not a blot. #StopSexism #Period. #SabarimalaVerdict p.s curious dissent by lone female judge on bench https://t.co/GAj2jA6e0T
— barkha dutt (@BDUTT) September 28, 2018
While I disagree with Justice Indu Malhotra , she has an opinion which must be read , I am sad though that a dissent in Shabrimalai came from a woman judge
— Indira Jaising (@IJaising) September 28, 2018
The same intellectuals who were enthusiastically celebrating ‘dissent’ on Aadhaar, found Justice Indu Malhotra’s dissent on Sabarimala ‘shocking’, ‘puzzling’, and ‘interesting.’ The cabal thought that being a woman she would oppose the ban on the entry of women between the ages of 10 to 50 year to Sabarimala temple. The cabal strongly believes that being a woman she should not have dissented with the majority opinion on Sabarimala verdict. The cabal found dissent of Chandrachud and Abdul Nazeer liberal and progressive. On the other hand for them, the dissent of Justice Indu Malhotra is regressive.
It shows the double standard of Freedom of Speech and Expression warriors; for them, dissent is only valid if it serves their narrative. Just a handful of people according to their convenience define what constitutes a dissent and what doesn’t. They want complete monopoly over dissent.
Justice Indu Malhotra received praises from other sections for her independent voice and thoughtful dissent.
When it came to challenging highly discriminatory 35A, SC postponed hearing citing "law & order problems.". But in Sabarimala case SC bench prove themselves to be loyal sons of Macaulay. Salute Justice Indu Malhotra for independent & thoughtful dissent.
— Madhu Purnima Kishwar (@madhukishwar) September 28, 2018
Do not reduce Indu Malhotra's judgement to her gender. She has given her judgement as per her professional standing. Whether it suits you or not it has nothing to do with her gender.
Such a disservice to empowered women when folks scrutinize her judgement based on her gender.
— shilpi tewari (@shilpitewari) September 28, 2018
https://twitter.com/gunjakapoor/status/1045557555718549505
Respect for Justice Indu Malhotra. Her dissent displays true sense of secularism and our constitutional values. I hope our media will hail her dissent even half of how they hailed Justice Chandrachur for his dissent in Aadhaar judgement.
— Rahul Kaushik (Modi Ka Parivar) (@kaushkrahul) September 28, 2018
Justice Indu Malhotra acted in her capacity as a judge in the matter and not, as the cabal expected, along gender stereotype. For this, she deserves praise.
