J. Sai Deepak

J. Sai Deepak is an Indian lawyer who became notable for appearing in the Supreme Court case pertaining to the entry of women into the Sabarimala Temple. He represented an organisation called People for Dharma that sought to represent the interests of Ayappan, the deity to whom Sabarimala is dedicated, and opposed the entry of women between the ages of 10 and 50 into the temple.
Education and career
Deepak did his schooling at St. Anthony's High School, Hyderabad. He graduated from Anna University with Bachelors in Mechanical Engineering in 2006, and completed his LL.B. from the Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur .
In 2009, he joined Saikrishna & Associates. After becoming Associate Partner, he left the firm to practice independently. In 2016, he represented the State of Madhya Pradesh before the Delhi High Court in its challenge to the cessation of supply of the Basmati breeder seeds from the central government.
Indian Young Lawyers Association v. The State of Kerala
In September 2018, a five judge bench the Supreme Court of India delivered its judgment in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. The State of Kerala, ruling that all pilgrims regardless of their biological gender, including women in the menstruating age group, should be allowed to enter Sabarimala. Previously, women between the ages of 10 to 50 were not allowed to enter the temple.
Representing an organisation named People for Dharma, J. Sai Deepak had argued that the entry of women should not be permitted since the deity must be considered as a person, entitled to the right to privacy. He submitted that since the deity was a naisthika brahmachari ( eternal celibate), entry of women should continue to be restricted. In an interview with Firstpost regarding the case, he stated that, "It is the will of the deity that is being preserved by the temple through the traditions it observes, which is effectively the object of Article 26. Finally, the deity has the right to follow his dharma like any other person under Article 25(1) and the state is duty-bound to protect his faith. In light of this, clearly the petitioners' rights under Article 25(1) cannot prevail over the deity's rights. In fact, they must be necessarily subservient to the rights of the deity." Although the Supreme Court rejected his arguments, Deepak gained widespread prominence among those that supported the continuation of the tradition.

Main Menu

See Also

Main Menu