Disclaimer: I am NOT a legal expert. I am a law abiding citizen of this country. The foregoing is my common man opinion. I apologize in advance if this view is wrong, and thanks for correction.
As I understand, contempt of court is when someone disregards a court order and does (or promote) something in violation of the order. Maybe the scope extends to the 'spirit' of the order, not just the letter of the order. It also covers other things, like personally criticizing the judge or making allegations of bias or whatnot, but those are not important for this discussion.
That is all there is.
Now, coming to the Sabarimala verdict:
The Honourable Supreme Court gave a verdict that the law that barred entry of women in the age group 10-50 to the Sabarimala temple is un constitutional, and therefore void. The law is gone.
This means, the Government, who used to enforce this law, can no longer enforce it. Which means, the government can not block any women from going to Sabarimala, because there is no law against it anymore. If the government does it, that would be contempt of court.
That is all there is.
Now, based on this, are the following contempt of court?
1. This may sound ridiculous, but this seems to be what the Govt afraid of. The Govt fails to get at least one woman to the temple within a reasonable amount of time. Is that contempt of court? Of course the answer is no, except that the CPIM government thinks otherwise.
2. A group of individuals blocks a women who tries to enter the temple. Are they in contempt of court? No!! Because the court simply voided the law that enabled the govt to block her legally. However, it is still a civil offense to block someone from doing something that she is entitled to.
It will be like blocking someone from entering a road, or a public park, or their own home. Offense, but NOT contempt of court. We have seen this happening during the thousands of hartals, and trade union disputes here in Kerala.
3. A women approach the police demanding protection to enter the temple. The police says "we don't have necessary resources currently to send with you". Is that contempt of court? NO! The court did not order the govt to take women to the temple.
4. The priest closes down the temple to deny darshan to the women. Is that contempt of court? No. The court said the law is void. Denying entry to everyone is not discrimination.
There you have it.. These are my common man's view.
As I understand, contempt of court is when someone disregards a court order and does (or promote) something in violation of the order. Maybe the scope extends to the 'spirit' of the order, not just the letter of the order. It also covers other things, like personally criticizing the judge or making allegations of bias or whatnot, but those are not important for this discussion.
That is all there is.
Now, coming to the Sabarimala verdict:
The Honourable Supreme Court gave a verdict that the law that barred entry of women in the age group 10-50 to the Sabarimala temple is un constitutional, and therefore void. The law is gone.
This means, the Government, who used to enforce this law, can no longer enforce it. Which means, the government can not block any women from going to Sabarimala, because there is no law against it anymore. If the government does it, that would be contempt of court.
That is all there is.
Now, based on this, are the following contempt of court?
1. This may sound ridiculous, but this seems to be what the Govt afraid of. The Govt fails to get at least one woman to the temple within a reasonable amount of time. Is that contempt of court? Of course the answer is no, except that the CPIM government thinks otherwise.
2. A group of individuals blocks a women who tries to enter the temple. Are they in contempt of court? No!! Because the court simply voided the law that enabled the govt to block her legally. However, it is still a civil offense to block someone from doing something that she is entitled to.
It will be like blocking someone from entering a road, or a public park, or their own home. Offense, but NOT contempt of court. We have seen this happening during the thousands of hartals, and trade union disputes here in Kerala.
3. A women approach the police demanding protection to enter the temple. The police says "we don't have necessary resources currently to send with you". Is that contempt of court? NO! The court did not order the govt to take women to the temple.
4. The priest closes down the temple to deny darshan to the women. Is that contempt of court? No. The court said the law is void. Denying entry to everyone is not discrimination.
There you have it.. These are my common man's view.
No comments:
Post a Comment