A nine-judge Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice S.A. Bobde, on Monday clarified that the apex court was not considering review pleas in the Sabarimala case. "We are not hearing review pleas of Sabarimala case. We are considering issues referred to by the five-judge bench earlier," the bench said, as it commenced hearing in the case.
The bench reiterated that it will be hearing issues related to discrimination against women in various religions and at religious places, and not just the case of Sabarimala Temple alone. Apart from the CJI, the other judges on the bench include Justices R. Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan, L. Nageswara Rao, M.M. Shantanagoudar, S.A. Nazeer, R. Subhash Reddy, B.R. Gavai and Surya Kant.
There are more than 50 review petitions, which had challenged the judgment of the Supreme Court allowing the entry of women of all ages in the Sabarimala temple in Kerala. The petitions are pending before the Supreme Court for final disposal.
The current hearing pertains to the apex court referring to a larger bench to re-examine various religious issues, including that of Kerala's Sabarimala temple, along with other contentious issues of alleged discrimination against Muslim and Parsi women, on November 14.
While the five-judge bench unanimously agreed to refer religious issues to a larger bench, it gave a 3:2 split decision on petitions seeking a review of the apex court's September 2018 decision allowing women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala shrine in Kerala.
A majority verdict by then Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and Indu Malhotra decided to keep pending pleas seeking a review of its decision regarding entry of women into the shrine, and said restrictions on women in religious places was not restricted to Sabarimala alone and was prevalent in other religions as well.
also read
- Senthil Balaji: Supreme Court issues notice to Tamil Nadu government asking...
- Former bureaucrats, activists move SC against Yati Narasinghanand’s Dharam Sansad in UP
- Places of Worship Act: SC restricts courts from ordering surveys, registering fresh pleas
- Atul Subhash suicide: Here's what Supreme Court said on misuse of cruelty laws in marital disputes
The minority verdict by Justices R.F. Nariman and D.Y. Chandrachud gave a dissenting view by dismissing all review pleas and directing compliance of its September 28 decision.
The top court had on January 6 issued a notice informing about listing of the batch of petitions seeking review of the 2018 judgement.
While referring the matter to a larger bench, the five-judge bench had however said that the debate about the constitutional validity of religious practices like bar on entry of women and girls into a place of worship was not limited to the Sabarimala case.
The top court said such restrictions are there with regard to entry of Muslim women into mosques and 'dargahs' and Parsi women, married to non-Parsi men, being barred from the holy fire place of an Agyari. It said it was time for the apex court to evolve a judicial policy to do "substantial and complete justice".
(With PTI inputs)
