{"id":225278,"date":"2020-02-06T18:00:48","date_gmt":"2020-02-06T12:30:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=225278"},"modified":"2020-02-06T18:00:48","modified_gmt":"2020-02-06T12:30:48","slug":"sabarimala-9-judge-bench-reserves-order-on-whether-a-reference-can-be-made-in-a-review-petition","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"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\/","title":{"rendered":"Sabarimala| 9-judge bench reserves order on whether a reference can be made in a review petition"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court:<\/strong> 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 can refer questions of law to a larger bench while exercising its review jurisdiction. The bench will pronounce the order on February 10, 2020 and will accord a day-to-day hearing from February 12, 2020 on issues relating to discrimination against women at various places of worship including the Sabarimala temple.<\/p>\n

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted before the Court that the 5-judge bench in Kantaru Rajeevaru v. India Young Lawyers\u2019 Association,\u00a02019 SCC OnLine SC 1461\u00a0<\/a><\/em>was right in referring the questions of law to the larger bench. He said,<\/p>\n

“As custodian of fundamental rights, it was the duty of the court to lay down an authoritative pronouncement on these questions of law.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Senior advocate Fali S Nariman opposed the submission and said that only the President can ask questions of national importance, not the court.<\/p>\n

Earlier, the bench had agreed to hear the 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<\/a> and examine whether certain essential religious practices of various faiths, including Islam and Zoroastrianism, should be constitutionally protected.<\/p>\n

In our report dated\u00a014.11.2019<\/a>, we had pointed out that the order passed by the 5-judge bench in\u00a0Kantaru Rajeevaru v. India Young Lawyers\u2019 Association,\u00a02019 SCC OnLine SC 1461\u00a0<\/a><\/em>was\u00a0debatable as involved a reference to a larger bench in a review petition<\/a>. We wrote,<\/p>\n

\u201cIf it is believed that a reference has indeed been made in the majority verdict, it will again be debatable on the ground that\u00a0a 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.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The bench is hearing matters relating to discrimination against women in various religions including Kerala\u2019s 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