The Cases That India Forgot

by Chintan Chandrachud

There have been some notable exceptions from this trend. In a decision upholding women’s right to worship at the Sabarimala temple in Kerala, one judge of the Supreme Court noted that Narasu was incorrectly decided and detracted ‘from the notion that no body of practices can claim supremacy over the Constitution and its vision of ensuring the sanctity of dignity, liberty and equality’.22 In 1996, a judge of the Supreme Court observed that personal laws imposing an inferior status on women were ‘anathema to equality’ and must be consistent with the Constitution, including fundamental rights.23 Another powerful criticism of the Narasu judgement came from the Kerala High Court: ‘[w]ith great respect to the eminent Judges who decided [the case] . . . we feel that the decision requires reconsideration.’24 The high court also observed that there was no reason to insulate personal law from scrutiny in a secular republic, and to do so went against India’s ‘core constitutional values’.25 These voices have been unable to persuade the Supreme Court to decisively overturn Narasu.