{"id":222086,"date":"2019-11-14T10:54:39","date_gmt":"2019-11-14T05:24:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=222086"},"modified":"2019-11-16T10:26:08","modified_gmt":"2019-11-16T04:56:08","slug":"sabarimala-review-petitions-not-referred-to-a-larger-bench","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/11\/14\/sabarimala-review-petitions-not-referred-to-a-larger-bench\/","title":{"rendered":"Sabarimala Review Petitions NOT referred to a larger bench, but kept pending. Here&#8217;s what Supreme Court has actually held"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><strong>Supreme Court<\/strong><\/span>: The 5-judge Constitution Bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and RF Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra, JJ has referred certain seminal issues to a larger bench in a 3:2 verdict. CJI Gogoi, Khanwilkar and Malhotra, JJ gave the majority opinion of referring the the questions to larger bench, whereas Nariman and Chandrachud, JJ gave dissenting opinions.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Due to the reference being made to the larger bench, the subject review petitions as well as the writ petitions will remain pending until determination of the questions indicated hereunder by a Larger Bench.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\"><em>Surprisingly, the majority verdict runs in only 6-pages in a 77-pages long verdict.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n<h3 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\"><strong>Majority Verdict by CJ Gogoi for himself &amp; Khanwilkar &amp; Malhotra, JJ<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><strong>\u201cThis Court should evolve a judicial policy befitting to its plenary powers to do substantial and complete justice and for an authoritative enunciation of the constitutional principles by a larger bench of not less than seven judges.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Referring the issues connected to the case at hand, CJ Gogoi wrote that <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\"><em>it may not be inappropriate if matters involving seminal issues including the interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution touching upon the right to profess, practise and propagate its own religion, are heard by larger bench of commensurate number of Judges<\/em>. <span style=\"color: #000000;\">He, hence, &#8216;suggested&#8217; that a 7-judge bench be formed to decide the abovementioned issues.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<h4 style=\"padding-left: 40px; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #008000;\">Questions that the Larger Bench &#8216;may&#8217; take up for consideration<\/span><\/h4>\n<ul style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<li>Interplay between the freedom of religion under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution and other provisions in Part III, particularly Article 14.<\/li>\n<li>Sweep of expression \u2018public order, morality and health\u2019 occurring in Article 25(1) of the Constitution.<\/li>\n<li>Sweep of expression \u2018morality\u2019 or \u2018constitutional morality. Is it over arching morality in reference to preamble or limited to religious beliefs or faith? There is need to delineate the contours of that expression, lest it becomes subjective.<\/li>\n<li>The extent to which the court can enquire into the issue of a particular practice is an integral part of the religion or religious practice of a particular religious denomination or should that be left exclusively to be determined by the head of the section of the religious group.<\/li>\n<li>Meaning of the expression \u2018sections of Hindus\u2019 appearing in Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution.<\/li>\n<li>Whether the \u201cessential religious practices\u201d of a religious denomination, or even a section thereof are afforded constitutional protection under Article 26.<\/li>\n<li>What would be the permissible extent of judicial recognition to PILs in matters calling into question religious practices of a denomination or a section thereof at the instance of persons who do not belong to such religious denomination?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\"><em>The majority verdict also suggested that the Larger Bench may also decide the question as to whether the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 govern the Sabarimala temple at all.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n<h4 style=\"padding-left: 40px; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #008000;\"><strong>Overlapping or related issues pending before the Supreme Court<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px; text-align: center;\"><strong>\u201cThe debate about the constitutional validity of practices entailing into restriction of entry of women generally in the place of worship is not limited to this case, but also arises in respect of entry of Muslim women in a Durgah\/Mosque as also in relation to Parsi women married to a non-Parsi into the holy fire place of an Agyari.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px; text-align: justify;\">The Court also took note of other seminal issues arising in the pending cases regarding entry of Muslim Women in Durgah\/Mosque; Parsi Women married to a non-Parsi in the Agyari; and including the practice of female genital mutilation in Dawoodi Bohra community and said that <em><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">these issues may be overlapping and covered by the judgment under review and hence, the prospect of the issues arising in those cases being referred to larger bench cannot be ruled out<\/span>. <\/em><\/p>\n<ul style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"color: #000080;\"><strong>Muslim Women in Durgah\/Mosque Case <\/strong><\/span>is pending before a 3-judge bench of SA Bobde, SA Nazeer and Krishna Murari, JJ. On November 5, 2019, the bench had adjourned the matter for 10 days which means that <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\"><em>the matter will now be taken up after Justice Bobde takes charge of the CJI offic<\/em><em>e<\/em><\/span>.<\/li>\n<li><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #000080;\">Parsi Women married to a non-Parsi in the Agyari case<\/span><a href=\"http:\/\/scconline.com\/\/DocumentLink\/2qYH9knZ\">\u00a0<\/a><\/strong><\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/blog.scconline.com\/post\/2017\/10\/09\/conversion-parsi-woman-marriage-5-judge-bench-decide-issue\/\">was referred to a 5-judge bench by a 3-judge bench of Dipak Misra, CJ and AM Khanwilkar and Dr. DY Chandrachud, JJ in October, 2017<\/a>. The 5-judge bench of former CJ Dipak Misra and AK Sikri, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan, JJ last heard the matter on December 14, 2017.<span style=\"color: #000080;\"> <strong> <a style=\"color: #000080;\" href=\"http:\/\/scconline.com\/\/DocumentLink\/2qYH9knZ\"><span style=\"color: #993300;\">[2017 SCC OnLine SC 1275<\/span>]<\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/li>\n<li>Case relating to <strong><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\">practice of female genital mutilation in Dawoodi Bohra community<\/span> <\/span><\/strong>was referred to a larger bench on September 24, 2018 by a 3-judge bench of former CJ Dipak Misra and AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud, JJ. <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\"><em>The Constitution bench is yet to be formed<\/em><\/span>. <a href=\"http:\/\/scconline.com\/\/DocumentLink\/1aaGeyJO\"><strong><span style=\"color: #993300;\">[2018 SCC OnLine SC 2667]<\/span><\/strong><\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h4 style=\"padding-left: 40px; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #008000;\"><strong>Stay on the 2018 verdict<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px; text-align: justify;\">The verdict is silent on whether there will be a stay on the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002933455\">2018 Sabarimala Verdict<\/a> which means that the said judgment will continue to hold ground till the review petitions are finally decided by the Court.<\/p>\n<h4 style=\"padding-left: 40px; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #008000;\"><strong>Why the majority verdict is debatable?<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 80px; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><span style=\"color: #993300; text-decoration: underline;\"><strong>\u2018Suggestive\u2019 reference<\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 80px; text-align: justify;\">The verdict does not make a clear reference of issues to a larger bench.<strong> The words<em> \u2018<span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">the prospect of the issues arising in those cases being referred to larger bench cannot be ruled out<\/span>\u2019 <\/em>used in the majority verdict may mean to imply that the reference made by the Court is merely \u2018<span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">suggestive<\/span>\u2019. <\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 80px; text-align: justify;\">Nariman, J\u2019s minority opinion also talks about the \u2018suggestive\u2019 nature of the references when it says,<\/p>\n<blockquote style=\"padding-left: 80px;\"><p>\u201cif and when the issues that have been set out in the learned Chief Justice\u2019s judgment arise in future, they can appropriately be dealt with by the bench\/benches which hear the petitions concerning Muslims, Parsis and Dawoodi Bohras.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 80px; text-align: justify;\">Hence, it would not be completely wrong to say that this judgment merely suggests the Benches in the abovementioned 3 cases to refer the issues listed down by it to a larger bench if it thinks fit.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 80px; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><span style=\"color: #993300; text-decoration: underline;\"><strong>Reference of a review petition<\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 80px; text-align: justify;\">If it is believed that a reference has indeed been made in the majority verdict, it will again be debatable on the ground that <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\"><em>a reference cannot be made in a review petition<\/em><\/span>. A judgment of the Supreme Court of is final, and a review of such judgment is an exception. Whatever the Court decides in a Review Petition become the law. So will a reference of a review petition to a larger bench mean creation of a new forum? Too many loose ends have been left in the majority verdict that the Court will have to tie up sooner or later.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 80px; text-align: justify;\">It is also pertinent to note that in the majority verdict, no \u2018<em>error on the face of record<\/em>\u2019 has been pointed out. In fact, <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\"><em>the majority verdict has not answered the review at all<\/em><\/span>. Which explains why the majority verdict runs in only 6 pages and 9 paras.<\/p>\n<h3 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\"><strong>Dissenting opinion by Nariman, J for himself and Chandrachud, J<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><strong>\u201cBona fide criticism of a judgment, albeit of the highest court of the land, is certainly permissible, but thwarting, or encouraging persons to thwart, the directions or orders of the highest court cannot be countenanced in our Constitutional scheme of things.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Disagreeing with the majority opinion that the Review Petitions be kept in a lurch while the larger bench decides the seminal issues concerning right to religion and women rights, Nariman and Chandrachud, JJ said that the only issue before the Court in the present case was the review petitions and the writ petitions that were filed in relation to the judgment in<a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002933455\"><strong><em> Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, 2018 SCC Online SC 1690<\/em><\/strong><\/a>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Stating that if and when the issues that have been set out in the learned Chief Justice\u2019s judgment arise in future, they can appropriately be dealt with by the bench\/benches which hear the petitions concerning Muslims, Parsis and Dawoodi Bohras, Nariman and Chandrachud, J said,<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\u201cWhat a future constitution bench or larger bench, if constituted by the learned Chief Justice of India, may or may not do when considering the other issues pending before this Court is, strictly speaking, not before this Court at all.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">They, hence, went on to examine the issue at hand and noticed that <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">there was a clear consensus on the following 3 issues<\/span>:<\/p>\n<ul style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<li>The devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a separate religious denomination and cannot, therefore, claim the benefit of Article 26 or the proviso to Section 3 of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965.<\/li>\n<li>The four majority judgments specifically grounded the right of women between the ages of 10 to 50, who are excluded from practicing their religion, under Article 25(1) of the Constitution, emphasizing the expression \u201call persons\u201d and the expression \u201cequally\u201d occurring in that Article, so that this right is equally available to both men and women of all ages professing the same religion.<\/li>\n<li>Section 3 of the 1965 Act traces its origin to Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution of India, and would apply notwithstanding any custom to the contrary, to enable Hindu women the right of entry 18 in all public temples open to Hindus, so that they may exercise the right of worship therein. As a concomitant thereof, Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 is violative of Article 25(1) of the Constitution of India and ultra vires Section 3 of the 1965 Act.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Given the consensus on the three issues delineated above, Nariman, J, hence, wrote that <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\"><em>no ground for review of the majority judgments was made out and the review petitions were hence dismissed<\/em><\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Nariman and Chandrachud, JJ, hence, <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\"><em>directed the State of Kerala to give wide publicity to the 2018 Sabarimala judgment through the medium of television, newspapers, etc<\/em>.<\/span> Pressing upon the need to implement the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002933455\">2018 Sabarimala Verdict<\/a>, they asked the government to take steps to secure the confidence of the community in order to ensure the fulfillment of constitutional values. The State government may have broad-based consultations with representatives of all affected interests so that the modalities devised for implementing the judgment of the Court meet the genuine concerns of all segments of the community, Nariman, J said in the minority opinion.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">[Kantaru Rajeevaru v. India Young Lawyers\u2019 Association, <a href=\"http:\/\/scconline.com\/\/DocumentLink\/5VMr56bS\">2019 SCC OnLine SC 1461<\/a>, decided on 14.11.2019]<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong><em><span style=\"color: #333399;\">Read more about the opinions of all the judges in the 4:1 majority verdict<\/span>\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><strong><em><a href=\"https:\/\/blog.scconline.com\/post\/2018\/09\/28\/women-of-all-age-group-allowed-to-enter-sabarimala-temple-devotees-of-lord-ayyappa-do-not-constitute-separate-religious-denomination-sc\/\">here<\/a><\/em><\/strong><em>.<\/em><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court: The 5-judge Constitution Bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and RF Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra, JJ has <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121,"featured_media":154914,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,38282],"tags":[14961,4841,38275,32618,16701],"class_list":["post-222086","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-decisions-of-the-constitution-benches-of-the-supreme-court","tag-larger-bench","tag-review-petition","tag-right-to-enter-places-of-worship","tag-sabarimala","tag-women-rights"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Sabarimala Review Petitions NOT referred to a larger bench, but kept pending. Here&#039;s what Supreme Court has actually held | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/11\/14\/sabarimala-review-petitions-not-referred-to-a-larger-bench\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sabarimala Review Petitions NOT referred to a larger bench, but kept pending. Here&#039;s what Supreme Court has actually held\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court: The 5-judge Constitution Bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and RF Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra, JJ has\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/11\/14\/sabarimala-review-petitions-not-referred-to-a-larger-bench\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2019-11-14T05:24:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-11-16T04:56:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Prachi Bhardwaj\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Prachi Bhardwaj\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/11\/14\/sabarimala-review-petitions-not-referred-to-a-larger-bench\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/11\/14\/sabarimala-review-petitions-not-referred-to-a-larger-bench\/\",\"name\":\"Sabarimala Review Petitions NOT referred to a larger bench, but kept pending. Here's what Supreme Court has actually held | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/11\/14\/sabarimala-review-petitions-not-referred-to-a-larger-bench\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/11\/14\/sabarimala-review-petitions-not-referred-to-a-larger-bench\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2019-11-14T05:24:39+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-11-16T04:56:08+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/de579aff4bc6dd24b68d6d472ac92942\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/11\/14\/sabarimala-review-petitions-not-referred-to-a-larger-bench\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/11\/14\/sabarimala-review-petitions-not-referred-to-a-larger-bench\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/11\/14\/sabarimala-review-petitions-not-referred-to-a-larger-bench\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/11\/14\/sabarimala-review-petitions-not-referred-to-a-larger-bench\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sabarimala Review Petitions NOT referred to a larger bench, but kept pending. Here&#8217;s what Supreme Court has actually held\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/de579aff4bc6dd24b68d6d472ac92942\",\"name\":\"Prachi Bhardwaj\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Prachi-Image2-150x150.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Prachi-Image2-150x150.png\",\"caption\":\"Prachi Bhardwaj\"},\"description\":\"Senior Associate Editor\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_3\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sabarimala Review Petitions NOT referred to a larger bench, but kept pending. Here's what Supreme Court has actually held | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/11\/14\/sabarimala-review-petitions-not-referred-to-a-larger-bench\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sabarimala Review Petitions NOT referred to a larger bench, but kept pending. Here's what Supreme Court has actually held","og_description":"Supreme Court: The 5-judge Constitution Bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and RF Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra, JJ has","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/11\/14\/sabarimala-review-petitions-not-referred-to-a-larger-bench\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2019-11-14T05:24:39+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-11-16T04:56:08+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Prachi Bhardwaj","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/11\/14\/sabarimala-review-petitions-not-referred-to-a-larger-bench\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/11\/14\/sabarimala-review-petitions-not-referred-to-a-larger-bench\/","name":"Sabarimala Review Petitions NOT referred to a larger bench, but kept pending. Here's what Supreme Court has actually held | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/11\/14\/sabarimala-review-petitions-not-referred-to-a-larger-bench\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/11\/14\/sabarimala-review-petitions-not-referred-to-a-larger-bench\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","datePublished":"2019-11-14T05:24:39+00:00","dateModified":"2019-11-16T04:56:08+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/de579aff4bc6dd24b68d6d472ac92942"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/11\/14\/sabarimala-review-petitions-not-referred-to-a-larger-bench\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/11\/14\/sabarimala-review-petitions-not-referred-to-a-larger-bench\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/11\/14\/sabarimala-review-petitions-not-referred-to-a-larger-bench\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/11\/14\/sabarimala-review-petitions-not-referred-to-a-larger-bench\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sabarimala Review Petitions NOT referred to a larger bench, but kept pending. Here&#8217;s what Supreme Court has actually held"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/de579aff4bc6dd24b68d6d472ac92942","name":"Prachi Bhardwaj","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Prachi-Image2-150x150.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Prachi-Image2-150x150.png","caption":"Prachi Bhardwaj"},"description":"Senior Associate Editor","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_3\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":205029,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/12\/sabarimala-review-petitions-to-be-heard-tomorrow-against-the-supreme-courts-verdict\/","url_meta":{"origin":222086,"position":0},"title":"Sabarimala| Review Petitions to be heard tomorrow against the Supreme Court\u2019s verdict","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 12, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The Bench comprising of CJ Ranjan Gogoi and R.F Nariman, A.M. Khanwilkar, Dr D.Y. Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra, JJ. will hear the review petitions in the Sabarimala Temple case against the decision allowing women\u2019s entry in Sabarimala Temple tomorrow\u00a0i.e. 13-11-2018 in chambers. Background: A 5-Judge Constitution Bench, by\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Hot Off The Press&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Hot Off The Press","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/hot_off_the_press\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":225204,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/02\/05\/sabarimala-can-reference-be-made-in-a-review-petition9-judge-bench-to-decide-along-with-other-issues\/","url_meta":{"origin":222086,"position":1},"title":"Sabarimala| Can reference be made in a review petition?9-judge bench to decide along with other issues","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"February 5, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: A nine-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court will hear on February 6 argument on the issue whether the court can refer questions of law to a larger bench on a review petition after renowned jurist and senior advocate Fali Nariman objected to the manner in which the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Hot Off The Press&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Hot Off The Press","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/hot_off_the_press\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":225278,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/02\/06\/sabarimala-9-judge-bench-reserves-order-on-whether-a-reference-can-be-made-in-a-review-petition\/","url_meta":{"origin":222086,"position":2},"title":"Sabarimala| 9-judge bench reserves order on whether a reference can be made in a review petition","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"February 6, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The 9-judge bench of SA Bobde, CJ and R Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan, L Nageswara Rao, M M Shantanagoudar, S A Nazeer, R Subhash Reddy, B R Gavai and Surya Kant, JJ, hearing the Sabarimala reference has reserved it's order on the legal issue of whether the Supreme Court\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Hot Off The Press&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Hot Off The Press","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/hot_off_the_press\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":222056,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/11\/13\/supreme-court-to-pronounce-verdicts-in-rafale-sabarimala-review-petitions-tomorrow\/","url_meta":{"origin":222086,"position":3},"title":"Supreme Court to pronounce verdicts in Rafale &#038; Sabarimala Review petitions tomorrow","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"November 13, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: Adding to the series of important rulings that are being passed before CJI Ranjan Gogoi retires, the Court is to pronounce 2 major verdicts tomorrow. CJI Gogoi retires on November 17, 2019. SABARIMALA REVIEW PETITION The 5-judge Constitution Bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and RF Nariman, AM Khanwilkar,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Hot Off The Press&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Hot Off The Press","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/hot_off_the_press\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":209603,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/06\/sabarimala-verdict-review-judgment-reserved\/","url_meta":{"origin":222086,"position":4},"title":"Sabarimala Verdict review: Judgment Reserved","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"February 6, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The 5-judge Constitution Bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and RF Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra, JJ has reserved verdict on a batch of petitions seeking review of its September 28, 2018 judgement that allowed women of all age groups to enter the Sabarimala temple in\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Hot Off The Press&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Hot Off The Press","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/hot_off_the_press\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":223982,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/08\/sabarimala-9-judge-bench-to-start-hearing-the-matter-from-january-13\/","url_meta":{"origin":222086,"position":5},"title":"Sabarimala| 9-judge bench to start hearing the matter from January 13","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"January 8, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: A nine-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice S A Bobde will hear from January 13 the issue of allowing women and girls of all ages to enter Kerala's Sabarimala temple, along with the other contentious issues of alleged discrimination against Muslim and Parsi women. The other judges\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Hot Off The Press&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Hot Off The Press","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/hot_off_the_press\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/222086","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/121"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=222086"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/222086\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/154914"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=222086"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=222086"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=222086"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}