In this two-part series, the author analyzes Justice D.Y. Chandrachud’s reasoning while tackling the challenge of Article 17 in the Sabarimala Temple Entry Case (“Sabarimala”). Chandrachud J. took a distinct approach by expanding the scope of Article 17 to include the notions of ‘Purity -Pollution’. Part II critiques an expansive interpretation of Article 17 using the Constituent Assembly Debates. Further, it analyses these debates using Dworkin’s conception of “vague standards” in Constitutional Theory and argues that Chandrachud’s reasoning paved the way for a new form of the ‘non-discrimination’ doctrine, one that lends teeth to the provisions of Article 17 and allows it to attack a wider set of discriminatory practices that find justification in such notions.
The post The Interpretative Scope of Article 17: Chandrachud, J. Breaking the Trend in Sabarimala: Part II appeared first on Law and Other Things.