Kids Portal For Parents India Kids Network
J Sai Deepak is an Indian jurist notable for his work on the court case pertaining to the entry of women to Sabarimala. He is an engineer turned lawyer, who represented the State of Madhya Pradesh in the case where the state government moved the Delhi high court on the issue of challenging the cease in supply of Basmati breeder seeds from the Center to the state on the basis of office memorandum. He works as an associate partner at Saikrishna & Associates. He worked on cases pertaining to Medical Law and Constitutional Litigation among others.
| Full Name: | J Sai Deepak (जे. साई दीपक) |
| Born: | 1985 Hyderabad, Telangana, India |
| Education: |
|
| Profession: | Lawyer, Writer |
| Parents: | N.A. |
| Spouse: | N.A. |
| Religion: | Hindu |
| Children: | N.A. |
| Books: |
|
Education:
J Sai Deepak graduated from Anna University with Bachelors in Mechanical Engineering. He then went on to pursue L.L.B from Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur. He said he took the decision after “political discourse has taken a sharp turn and has gradually transformed into self-loathing and self-hatred in a very systematic manner.”
Career:
After completing L.L.B, he joined Saikrishna & Associates as an Associate in 2009. Since then he has been promoted to an Associate Partner.
Papers:
He has presented papers with titles such as Protection of Traditional Handicrafts under Indian Intellectual Property Laws, Patents and Competition Law: Identifying Jurisdictional Metes and Bounds in the Indian Context, among others.
Work On The Entry Of Women To Sabarimala case:
In September 2018, a judgement by the Supreme Court of India ruled that all pilgrims regardless of their biological gender, including women in the menstruating age group, should be allowed entrance to Sabarimala. Previously menstruating women between the ages of 10 to 50 were not legally allowed to enter Sabarimala.
Representing the group People for Dharma, J Sai Deepak who previously also worked on cases pertaining to freeing Indian temples from state control, has presented arguments in front of a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra. He made the argument that the deity Ayyappan should be considered as a person, and should be given the Constitutional right to privacy under Article 21, thus banning women of menstruating age from visiting him per his will. He referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Bishwanath and others vs Thakur Radhaballabhji & Others, 1967 AIR 1044.
He said:
“The temple has asserted its rights, women have asserted their rights, but no one has asserted the rights of the deity inside Sabarimala – Sabarimala’s Lord Ayyappa has rights under articles 21, 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India, and his right to remain a naisthika bramhachari’ falls under Article 25 and hence, women’s entry inside the temple should continue to be restricted – 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.”
