A contempt petition was filed in the Supreme Court against the Tantri of Sabarimala Temple for performing a Shuddhikaran ceremony after two women desecrated the Shrine. Hearing on the matter has been fixed for January 22.
Supreme Court refuses to give an urgent hearing to a mentioning by lawyer, PV Dinesh, seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the #SabarimalaTemple priest for purification of temple premises after entry of 2 women yesterday. SC said the matter has been fixed for Jan 22 pic.twitter.com/HcEZGX7xKZ
— ANI (@ANI) January 3, 2019
Advocate PV Dinesh appearing for Indian Young Lawyers Association (IYLA) argued that closure of the Shrine by authorities was in violation of the Supreme Court’s verdict. The IYLA had also filed the original petition against the tradition of Sabarimala.
PV Dinesh has an interesting background. He is the founder and Chief-Mentor at Live Law, the news portal for legal journalism. He has previously filed another contentious petition regarding Sabarimala. In response to the review petition filed by Nair Service Society (NSS) against the Supreme Court verdict, Dinesh’s plea for intervention filed on behalf of the mother of a 14-year-old girl, claimed that the NSS’ review petition where they explained the celibate nature of the Deity was defamatory to Bhagwan Ayyappa.
“The contention that a 10-year-old girl’s presence will affect the celibacy of Lord Ayyappa is a derogatory and offensive remark not only against Lord Ayyappa but more so on children of such a tender age,” the plea reads. “Millions of Ayyappa devotees are deeply saddened by such aspersions spread in the name of Lord Ayappa,” it asserted.
Dinesh has also appeared for the CPIM previously. The party’s petition against demonetization was filed through Dinesh. “Demonetisation has created a riot-like situation in the country. The government should ensure that common people have immediate access to enough money to pay for their daily needs and health emergencies. The country has virtually come standstill,” the plea had asserted.
Dinesh had also appeared in the Hadiya Love Jihad case for the State Women’s Commission of Kerala. On the matter, he wrote, “Hadiya’s win is definitely a win for herself and a victory of constitutional rights; but the unfortunate aspect is that it is also a victory of “sudapis”, the hundreds of fundamentalists who contributed penny and pound wise, just because she is a neo-convert. Interestingly, it is a win for the sanghis too; they too have grossed political capital by leading ordinary secular Hindus to “Hindutva”; a militant way of life, achieved through ‘religious’ bankruptcy.”
In the Kathua rape case, Dinesh was involved as well. Dinesh was one of several lawyers who had claimed that an advocate appearing for the victim’s family was given threats and prevented from appearing in the Court by advocates of the Jammu Bar Association and Kathua Bar Association.
A Committee of the Bar Council of India (BCI), headed by a former High Court Judge, after thorough investigation had learnt that the media has misreported the entire episode involving the conduct of the Jammu Bar Association and Kathua Bar Association and there was no material evidence to support Deepika Rajawat’s claim that she was threatened. The Committee was formed after the Supreme Court had directed the BCI to set up an investigative team to get to the bottom of the issue. On the BCI’s report, Dinesh had said, “This report is nothing but a whitewash.”
There appears to be a familiar trend with the conduct of Advocate P.V. Dinesh. It appears hardly surprising, given his history, that he has filed a contempt petition against the Tantri for performing the religious rituals of his Deity.