Sabarimala verdict: SC refuses urgent hearing on review petition

Agencies

October 9, 2018

New Delhi, Oct 9: The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused urgent hearing on a review petition filed against the verdict of allowing entry of women of all ages in Kerala's Sabarimala temple.

A bench, headed by Chief Justice Gogoi, said that the petitions will be listed in the usual course, after advocate Mathew J Nedumpara, appearing for Lord Ayappa devotees association sought urgent hearing of the case.

Lord Ayappa Devotees Association sought urgent hearing of the review petitions saying the temple would be opened on October 16.

They asked the court to hear the review pleas before the Supreme Court goes in for holidays from October 12.

Advocate Nedumpara said that for the implementation of the order of the top court, Kerala is making all arrangements to allow women of all age groups to enter the temple.

The Ayyappa devotees, in their plea, said that apex court's judgement was against the "fundamental right of belief and faith".

The Supreme Court's judgement in the Sabarimala case has sent shock waves among millions of Ayyappa devotees, said their petition.

They contended that they were not a party in the case in which the apex court had passed the judgement and thus should now be heard.

On September 28, the Constitution bench of the apex court had allowed entry of women, aged between 10 and 50, to enter into the temple.

The court had held that not allowing women of all age to enter into the temple was "irrational and arbitrary".

Four review petitions have been filed against the Sabarimala judgement.

Before the judgement, women aged 10 to 50 were not allowed to visit the temple as per 'traditions'.

Meanwhile, Lord Ayyappa devotees in Kerala's Trivandrum organised 'Ayyappa Nama Japa Yatra' to Raj Bhavan as a mark of protest against the verdict.

Scores of devotees gathered at the venue to walk to the Raj Bhavan while chanting hymns in praise of Lord Ayyappa.

The Sabarimala Temple, located in Kerala's Pathanamthitta district, is dedicated to the Hindu deity Ayyappa. The temple management argues that the deity is eternal celibate, and thus women of menstruating ages should be forbidden from entering the temple.

Comments

Add new comment

Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.

‘Pay the worker before his sweat dries’: Madras High Court cites Prophet Muhammad’s teaching while ordering settlement of dues

News Network

December 21,2025

Invoking the teachings of Prophet Muhammad—“pay the worker before his sweat dries”—the Madras High Court has directed a municipal corporation to settle long-pending legal dues owed to a former counsel. The court observed that this principle reflects basic fairness and applies equally to labour and service-related disputes.

Justice G. R. Swaminathan made the observation while hearing a petition filed by advocate P. Thirumalai, who claimed that the Madurai City Municipal Corporation failed to pay him legal fees amounting to ₹13.05 lakh. Earlier, the High Court had asked the corporation to consider his representation. However, a later order rejected a major portion of his claim, prompting the present petition.

The court allowed Thirumalai to approach the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) and submit a list of cases in which he had appeared. It also directed the corporation to settle the verified fee bills within two months, without interest. The court noted that the petitioner had waited nearly 18 years before challenging the non-payment and that the corporation could not be fully blamed, as the fee bills were not submitted properly.

‘A Matter of Embarrassment’

Justice Swaminathan described it as a “matter of embarrassment” that the State has nearly a dozen Additional Advocate Generals. He observed that appointing too many law officers often leads to unnecessary allocation of work and frequent adjournments, as government counsel claim that senior officers are engaged elsewhere.

He expressed hope that such practices would end at least in the Madurai Bench of the High Court and added that Additional Advocate Generals should “turn a new leaf” from 2026 onwards.

‘Scandalously High Amounts’

While stating that the court cannot examine the exact fees paid to senior counsel or law officers, Justice Swaminathan stressed that good governance requires public funds to be used prudently. He expressed concern over the “scandalously high amounts” paid by government and quasi-government bodies to a few favoured law officers.

In contrast, the court noted that Thirumalai’s total claim was “a pittance” considering the large number of cases he had handled.

Background

Thirumalai served as the standing counsel for the Madurai City Municipal Corporation for more than 14 years, from 1992 to 2006. During this period, he represented the corporation in about 818 cases before the Madurai District Courts.

As the former counsel was unable to hire a clerk to obtain certified copies of judgments in all 818 cases, the court directed the District Legal Services Authority to collect the certified copies within two months. The court further ordered the corporation to bear the cost incurred by the DLSA and deduct that amount from the final settlement payable to the petitioner.

Comments