Sabarimala case: SC upholds earlier decision referring matter to larger 9-judge bench; daily hearings begin 17 Feb

The Supreme Court held that its five-judge bench can refer questions of law to a larger bench while exercising its limited power under review jurisdiction in the Sabarimala case

Press Trust of India February 10, 2020 12:13:50 IST
Sabarimala case: SC upholds earlier decision referring matter to larger 9-judge bench; daily hearings begin 17 Feb
  • The Supreme Court held that its five-judge bench can refer questions of law to a larger bench while exercising its limited power under review jurisdiction in the Sabarimala case

  • A bench headed by Chief Justice SA Bobde framed seven questions to be heard by a nine-judge Constitutional bench

  • The court proposes to hear on a day-to-day basis from 17 February questions framed on scope of religious freedom in various religions

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday held that its five-judge bench can refer questions of law to a larger bench while exercising its limited power under review jurisdiction in the Sabarimala case.

A bench headed by Chief Justice SA Bobde framed seven questions to be heard by a nine-judge Constitutional bench on issues relating to freedom of religion under the Constitution and faith.

The court proposes to hear on a day-to-day basis from 17 February questions framed on scope of religious freedom in various religions. The seven questions framed by the bench include those on scope and ambit of religious freedom, and interplay between religious freedom and freedom of beliefs of religious denominations.

Sabarimala case SC upholds earlier decision referring matter to larger 9judge bench daily hearings begin 17 Feb

File image of the Supreme Court. AP

The bench said its nine-judge bench will deal with the right to freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution and its interplay with the right of various religious denominations. It will also deal with the extent of judicial review with regard to religious practices and the meaning of "sections of Hindus" occurring in article 25 (2)(b) of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court will also deal with the power of a person, who does not belong to a particular religion or sect of a religion, to question the religious beliefs of that religion by filling a PIL. The apex court asked the lawyers representing various parties to give information as to who they are representing and the bench then would allot time to them for advancing arguments.

It said that Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, would open the arguments followed by senior advocate K Parasaran on 17 February. The bench also comprising Justices R Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan, L Nageswara Rao, M M Shantanagoudar, S A Nazeer, R Subhash Reddy, B R Gavai and Surya Kant would hear the issues which were referred by a five-judge Constitution bench headed by then Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi (since retired) on 14 November, 2019.

Besides the Sabarimala case, the verdict had also referred issues of entry of Muslim women into mosques and dargahs and of Parsi women, married to non-Parsi men, being barred from the holy fire temple called Agiary, to the larger bench.

A five-judge bench, by a majority of 3:2 on 14 November last year, had referred to a larger bench the issue of discrimination against women at various religions' places of worship. It said the larger bench will have to evolve a judicial policy to do "substantial and complete justice" in matters of freedom of religion, such as restrictions on the entry of Muslim and Parsi women into their respective places of worship.

A majority verdict by the then chief justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices AM Khanwilkar and Indu Malhotra decided to keep the pleas seeking a review of its decision regarding entry of women into the shrine pending and said restrictions on women at religious places were not limited to Sabarimala alone and were prevalent in other religions also.

By a 4:1 majority verdict, the apex court had in September 2018 lifted the ban that prevented women and girls between the age of 10 and 50 years from entering the famous Ayyappa shrine in Sabarimala and held that the centuries-old Hindu religious practice was illegal and unconstitutional.

Updated Date:

Subscribe to Moneycontrol Pro at ₹499 for the first year. Use code PRO499. Limited period offer. *T&C apply

also read

Supreme Court reserves order on Mukhtar Ansari's transfer to Uttar Pradesh from Punjab jail
India

Supreme Court reserves order on Mukhtar Ansari's transfer to Uttar Pradesh from Punjab jail

While Uttar Pradesh alleged in the apex court that there is collusion between Ansari and Punjab Police, the Amarinder Singh government refuted these claims and raised questions over the maintainability of plea filed by the Yogi Adityanath-led government

SC to not share video conference links for hearings on WhatsApp group
India

SC to not share video conference links for hearings on WhatsApp group

The decision came days after Centre issued regulations for social media firms, making it mandatory for them to identify originators of messages that threaten India’s security and sovereignty

Heirs of woman's father entitled to inherit her property under Hindu Succession Act, says Supreme Court
India

Heirs of woman's father entitled to inherit her property under Hindu Succession Act, says Supreme Court

The top court gave the ruling after a widowed woman's decision to transfer her share of her husband's property in favour of her brother's son was challenged in court