N R Madhava Menon, founder of the National Law School of India University
(Shared from WhatsApp )

It is mainly up to the state government and the Supreme court to restore peace in Sabarimala.

Just because there is a Supreme Court verdict does not mean that the government has to blindly implement it. Law and order is of primary concern. Police should not be used in such a large and menacing way as long as the protests are not violent.shated Hundreds of policemen escorting a women to Sabarimala is not the way to enforce a Supreme Court order. Such show of strength can be highly provocative. Then, given that things have developed in a manner no one had anticipated, the state government can very well approach the Supreme Court saying that the issue needs reconsideration.

The Supreme Court, too, can step in to ease the situation. There is a doctrine that the judges adopt at the apex level called the 'judicially manageable standards'. If they find that a particular issue not judicially manageable, they will defer it. The case will be kept in abeyance unless and until a solution is found that will not create new problems.

The Supreme Court also champions alternate dispute resolution methods. There are reconciliation and mediation cells in the Supreme Court itself. The Sabarimala is the kind of case that should have been referred to the mediation cell. Even now, it is not late.

It will be interesting how the Supreme Court will respond to the review. They can either dismiss it or they can say they are willing to conduct an open hearing. They can have a larger bench to examine the issue. There are innumerable instances where the Supreme Court has corrected itself.

At stake are two conflicting fundamental rights. The right to equality (Article 14-18) and right to practice and profess the religion of one's choice (Article 25-28). There is a need to find a balance. If you give all the weightage to equality, what will happen to religions like Hinduism that are based entirely on faith. These religions do not have an organised church or does not draw its spiritual energy from a single holy book. What if someone argues that worshipping a stone is unscientific and therefore unconsitutional? Faith has to be acceptable so long as it does not affect public order or public health