{"id":225204,"date":"2020-02-05T13:17:43","date_gmt":"2020-02-05T07:47:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=225204"},"modified":"2020-02-05T13:22:18","modified_gmt":"2020-02-05T07:52:18","slug":"sabarimala-can-reference-be-made-in-a-review-petition9-judge-bench-to-decide-along-with-other-issues","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"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\/","title":{"rendered":"Sabarimala| Can reference be made in a review petition?9-judge bench to decide along with other issues"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court<\/strong>: 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 Supreme Court turned a review of the Sabarimala case into an opportunity to set up a nine-judge Bench and examine whether certain essential religious practices of various faiths, including Islam and Zoroastrianism, should be constitutionally protected.<\/p>\n

CJI asked,<\/p>\n

\u201cAre you saying that when hearing the review of one judgment [Sabarimala in this case], we cannot refer such larger questions to a larger Bench?\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

To which Mr. Nariman responded,<\/p>\n

\u201cYes, that is absolutely right. It will be outside your jurisdiction to do that,\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Finding a formidable point in Mr. Nariman’s arguments, CJI said that the nine-judge Bench would not \u201cabort the hearing\u201d now but the objections raised by Mr. Nariman would be framed as an \u201cissue\u201d to be decided by the Bench.<\/p>\n

In our report dated 14.11.2019<\/a>, we had pointed out that the order passed by the 5-judge bench in Kantaru Rajeevaru v. India Young Lawyers\u2019 Association,\u00a02019 SCC OnLine SC 1461 <\/a><\/em>was debatable as involved a reference to a larger bench in a review petition<\/a>. We wrote,<\/p>\n

\n

“If it is believed that a reference has indeed been made in the majority verdict, it will again be debatable on the ground that a reference cannot be made in a review petition<\/em>. 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<\/blockquote>\n

The bench is hearing matters relating to discrimination against women in various religions including Kerala’s Sabarimala temple, mosques, the practice of female genital mutilation in the Dawoodi Bohra community and Parsi women married to non-Parsi men being barred from its holy fire temple.<\/p>\n

Overlapping or related issues pending before the Supreme Court<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n