Sabarimala, judicial overreach, activism or ill-informed grandstanding?

Repeated transgressions, muddle-headed thinking and missing woods for the trees are the hallmarks of a liberal mind with a skewed perspective.

Any other person in public sphere could be ignored but not arbiters of law who approach, reviews, listens to issues brought up for their consideration, through a prism of fixated prejudices.

The society would be better served if such minds while still being given a space in the society is not allowed to muddy the waters or create schisms. A sane society that is still treading water needs to be all the more vigilant to ensure that the edifices that are being built does not get battered by the ill-winds caused by such mavericks in the judiciary, hellbent on imposing their idea of liberalism.

Ideal solution would be removing (if impeachment is a harsh word) such judicial minds who dispense jurisprudence with a fixed notion/ ideal of “crushing majoritarianism”.

The observations during the course of the Sabarimala hearing, made it farcical since the prejudices and fixed notions of justice that clouded the intellect and ability to interpret constitution in an equanimous manner as evidenced by the invocation of “Untouchability“- which is not practiced at Sabarimala and “dignity”- not explicitly spelt-out in the constitution, while coming up with a flawed judgement stand mute witness.

In sec 497 verdict, instead of revoking the law, we saw this grandstanding wherein it had been observed that a lady through marriage does not have to stop exploring sexual happiness outside the marriage! While, as a stand alone that is an interesting thought but a degenerate one since that hits at the very core of the idea of a family.

This is not the first time that we had the spectacle of the propensity to be this show-pony rather than be true arbiters of law.

Is our democracy being handicapped by such minds is the bigger question.

The opinions expressed within articles on "My Voice" are the personal opinions of respective authors. is not responsible for the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information or argument put forward in the articles. All information is provided on an as-is basis. does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same.