Harping on the perceived inviolability of the 4:1 Sabarimala judgment misses the essential principles of jurisprudence which state that there is no such thing as an irrevocable verdict (Editorial page, “A revival of battles already fought and lost,” Nov. 28). The 2018 verdict caused widespread resentment among believers because many viewed it as unwarranted interference in the customs of a temple. Should judges ignore the disaffection caused by decisions? Are they not obliged to examine why people of a progressive State, where women enjoy an exalted status in society, saw nothing discriminatory in the restrictions? The spirit of the law demands a considered appreciation of the social milieu. The reference of the review petitions to a larger bench is a tacit admission of deficiencies in the 2018 judgment. The invocation of battle metaphors to sanctify a review-worthy judgment is nothing but an apology for judicial absolutism.
V.N. Mukundarajan,
Thiruvananthapuram
