Title

Just Hindus

Document Type

Working Paper

Publication Date

10-18-2019

SSRN Discipline

Legal Scholarship Network; Philosophy Research Network; Law School Research Papers - Legal Studies; Law & Society eJournals; Law & Society: Public Law eJournals; Legal Anthropology eJournals; LSN Subject Matter eJournals; AARN Subject Matter eJournals; Cultural Anthropology eJournals; Constitutional Law, Jurisprudence & Legal Philosophy eJournals; Political Science Network; Anthropology & Archaeology Research Network

Abstract

What happens when courts reach "good" outcomes through "bad" reasoning Are there limits to consequentialist jurisprudence The Indian Supreme Court's recent decision in IYLA v State of Kerala offers important insights on both issues IYLA decided in September 2018 held that Sabarimala Hindu temple may not ban women aged 10"“50 from its premises even though devotees argue the exclusion is religiously mandated Reactions to IYLA have been vehement and violent and so far only two women in the prohibited agerange have managed to visit the temple Perhaps any outcome impinging on religious practice would have elicited such responses Nevertheless the Court's analysis which disregarded devotee perspectives in its eagerness to acknowledge the previouslyoverlooked perspectives of women is problematic insofar as it superficially upholds the Court's reputation as a progressive institution and creates bad precedent by further damaging the "essential practices" doctrine This article draws on case law and legal analysis to demonstrate how the Court's reasoning paid short shrift to its own doctrines and to conflicting imperatives in the Indian Constitution The Court's and ruling's failures underscore the extent to which winning good outcomes through bad reasoning should be sobering rather than satisfying

Download

Share

COinS