The Supreme Court on Tuesday pulled up advocate Ashwini Upadhyay during the ongoing Sabarimala reference case, repeatedly asking him to stay within the scope of the issues being examined. Hearing the matter, a nine-judge bench expressed concern over what it termed as irrelevant and wide-ranging submissions.
As per a Live Law report, Upadhyay, during his arguments, said that 'Dharma' is greater than religion and claimed, "Bharat was divided into 25 pieces in the last 2000 years due to denominational conflicts, and in the last 200 years, Bharat was divided into 7 countries." He also cautioned the court about the impact of its ruling, stating, "every action has a reaction", and added, "Whether in the next 25 years we will become a scientific integrated country like China, Singapore, or Japan, or become countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan or Bangladesh."
The bench, however, repeatedly intervened, with Justice Mahadevan telling the counsel, "You are going beyond the subject being discussed by everyone of us. You said there are 52 alphabets in Sanskrit; similarly, Tamil has 247 letters. Don't go into all those areas. Confine yourself to the point in issue."
Upadhyay argued that constitutional interpretation in English had limitations, saying, "So, when we interpret things in English, it will be very difficult," while also stating that terms like "Samvidhan" and Dharma lack accurate English equivalents.
He further claimed that all religions are not equal and presented Hindu religious texts before the bench to support his argument. At this point, the court stepped in again. Justice Amanullah said, "We have to stop you." Justice Nagarathna asked him directly, "What is your submission?"
Responding, Upadhyay said, "My submission is dharma and religion is not the same, and all religions are also not the same."
As the arguments continued, Chief Justice Surya Kant intervened, saying, "Time is over."
Upadhyay then concluded by defending the Sabarimala temple practice, arguing that the restriction on entry of women aged 10 to 50 was reasonable. He added, "Dharma says Vasudaivaka Kutumbakam...religion says if you are in my religion...."
Justice Nagarathna responded, "Every religion has its own Dharma," to which he replied, "All religions don't give Vasudaivaka Kutumbakam concept."
The bench continued to push back. Justice Sundresh said, "Please don't argue like this," while Upadhyay responded, "It may be a bitter truth." Justice Amanullah then told him, "Absolutely not. You have to understand the scope of the matter."
Source: India Latest News, Breaking News Today, Top News Headlines | Times Now
