After hearing Mehta's submissions, CJI Bobde observed that there are questions that arose in Sabarimala, and also there are questions that are there in other cases such as Muslim women's demand to enter mosques, and the FGM in Dawoodi Bohras and whether Parsi women married to non-Parsis lose religion.
LIVE: Nine-judge bench of SC commenced hearing of Sabrimala case
sc
12:42 February 03
11:51 February 03
- Deewan concluded by saying that the hearing should be held in two parts.
- Deewan says that we have limited jurisdictions when the bench says that issues may arise or may not arise.
- CJI asks why don't we have jurisdictions?
- Mr Deewan it is premature to make these contentions now: CJI
- We are not going to decide this now: CJI on Deewan's contentions
- We would like to hear the response on this: CJI
- Errors can be corrected in particular cases but writ petitions had no reference to the larger bench- Deewan
- Reference to a larger Bench in a review judgment is not permissible. If the reference was to be made, it should have been done in the Sabarimala case before the final judgment on September 28. Reference cannot be made in a review: Deewan
- The scope of review is very narrow: Deewan
11:35 February 03
- Two of the five judges hearing the Sabarimala review had dismissed the review petition: Senior Counsel Rakesh Dwivedi
- As far as the Muslim law board affidavit is concerned it says that they allow Muslims: Sibal
- Art. 25 is subject to Part 3 which means A.14 which is state action,l: Sibal
- A lot of petitions that have come here are without reference to the law. How will you decide? Sibal
- We won't!: CJI
- "As of now, we are not aborting the hearing"- CJI
- Advocate Shyam Deewan reads out from the majority opinion of the Sabarimala review judgment.
- Deewan points out the wordings used in Sabarimala opinion which said that there 'may be overlapping' (on women entry in mosques and paris women entry)
- There is an element of speculation
- There might be issues which could be referred to a larger bench
- Everything in the reference order is in the nature of speculation: Deewan
- NO. The court was aware of all. It was just a doubt of prospect of referring it to a 9 judge bench: CJI
11:30 February 03
- We (9-judge bench) will not be deciding Sabarimala case says CJI Bobde.
- The distinction between Sabarimala and other cases is that Sabarimala is a decided case: Dhawan.
- 5 judges who heard were hearing a review, they had to see if there is any error. They upheld the earlier judgement. Referring order doesn't says that it suffers from any error: Adv Diwedi
- Adv Diwedi supports Narimana
- Keep the right to religion wide. Keep the restrictions to religion to balance: Dhawan
- You have to x ray religion: Dhawan
- I am not saying that religion can be restricted. It is at level of free speech. Public order health morality: Dhawan
11:30 February 03
- We understand that if we lay down the law it will be beneficial in future. We will decide it in a broader sense- CJI
- Singhvi suggests that once again issues to be decided by the judges and along with that the lawyers issues to be included.
- Review can not adhourned and postponed...he supports Nariman's point of view: Adv Rajeev Dhawan
- In my view essential practices a flawed approach: Dhawan
- In 1990 cases what was added was that it must be essential and integral. Does the court have a right to tell the person that what is religion?: Dhawan
Jaisin doesn't agree with Dhawan's contention
11:18 February 03
- A crime can not be protected under 25 26 under any facts of circumstances: CJI
- If 9 judges bench say something it is going to have a very huge impact everywhere. It is a very sensitive issue. Any statement you make my lord is going to impact the community across the globe- Sr Adv Kapil Sibal
- CJI says that they were told by a section of Muslims that we don't restrict women from entering
- Adv Indira Jainsin urges court to treat it is as prelia minary issue
11:18 February 03
- I am not suggesting that 9 judge constitution bench should not deal with the questions. It is the court's prerogative- Nariman
- We are going to decide articles that can be invoked in such cases and also Sabrimala- CJI
- We will not be hearing preliminary manner- CJI
- CJI says that they will frame the contention of Narimana and Deewan's issue and hear it along with other issues-CJI
- Nariman is saying that court should decide the issues when the matter is heard instead of referring it to other bench
11:13 February 03
- CJI SA Bobde says that the Court is hearing the larger issues on the basis of Order 6 Rule 2
- The review of Sabrimala is not with us, the order says that it will be decided later...we are deciding on other issues and thar is what we are supposed to do- CJI
- There are questions which arose in Sabrimala and questions which arose in similar petitions like Muslim women entering the mosques- CJI
11:11 February 03
- We have certain questions referred to us. What is referred to us is not review Petition-. CJI
- CJI asks Nariman that the bench would like to know what they want to address.
- An advocate says that minority opinion has gone against it.
- Matter may be referred to a larger Bench when the Court feels that some questions need to be decided by a Bench of larger strength: SG Tushar Mehta
11:05 February 03
Adv Deewan supports Nariman and asks the judges to hear them
- The facts in the Sabarimala case are in judgment of Justice Mishra. The scope of review is extremely limited: Nariman
- scope of the review is very limited and the jurisdiction is limited: Nariman
- Nariman questions the decision of the bench headed by the then CJI Ranjan Gogoi to refer larger questions during deciding on a review petition
11:04 February 03
He stated that there is no need to frame the questions and other issues if relevant, in an open court.
- An advocate asks if it lies within the review Petition
- We may not agree here: SG Tushar Mehta
- SG Tushar Mehta suggests that judges can decide it in the chambers
Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta told the Apex Court that the issues can be framed in the chambers itself.
10:54 February 03
Nine-judge bench of SC commenced hearing of Sabrimala case
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday resumed the exercise of framing questions to be deliberated upon by it in dealing with the issue of discrimination against women in various religions, including the matter of entry of females at Sabarimala temple in Kerala.
The new bench constituted was headed by Chief Justice of India SA Bobde.
Other judges in the bench are Justices R Banumathi, L Nageswara Rao, Ashok Bhushan, Mohan M Shantanagoudar, S Abdul Nazeer, R Subhash Reddy, BR Gavai, and Surya Kant.
Two judges, Justice RF Nariman and DY Chandrachud who ruled in favour of women's entry in Sabarimala case aren't part of the new bench and the woman judge, Justice Indu Malhotra who ruled against women's entry, is also not part of the new bench either.
A reference relating to discrimination of women in various religions was made to a larger bench through a judgment delivered on November 14 last year in the Sabarimala case.
The bench has to frame questions which have a reason in various petitions relating to entry of Muslim women in two mosques, the practice of female genital mutilation in Dawoodi bohra Muslim community and denial of right to Parsi women who have married outside their religion.
He had fixed a 10-day period for concluding the hearing on the petition seeking women's entry into Sabarimala temple, mosques, and Parsi Agiyari. The Apex Court had on January 13 said that it will only hear the questions referred to in the review order passed by it in November last year in the Sabarimala temple case, which allowed women and girls of all age groups to visit the shrine in Kerala.
12:42 February 03
After hearing Mehta's submissions, CJI Bobde observed that there are questions that arose in Sabarimala, and also there are questions that are there in other cases such as Muslim women's demand to enter mosques, and the FGM in Dawoodi Bohras and whether Parsi women married to non-Parsis lose religion.
11:51 February 03
- Deewan concluded by saying that the hearing should be held in two parts.
- Deewan says that we have limited jurisdictions when the bench says that issues may arise or may not arise.
- CJI asks why don't we have jurisdictions?
- Mr Deewan it is premature to make these contentions now: CJI
- We are not going to decide this now: CJI on Deewan's contentions
- We would like to hear the response on this: CJI
- Errors can be corrected in particular cases but writ petitions had no reference to the larger bench- Deewan
- Reference to a larger Bench in a review judgment is not permissible. If the reference was to be made, it should have been done in the Sabarimala case before the final judgment on September 28. Reference cannot be made in a review: Deewan
- The scope of review is very narrow: Deewan
11:35 February 03
- Two of the five judges hearing the Sabarimala review had dismissed the review petition: Senior Counsel Rakesh Dwivedi
- As far as the Muslim law board affidavit is concerned it says that they allow Muslims: Sibal
- Art. 25 is subject to Part 3 which means A.14 which is state action,l: Sibal
- A lot of petitions that have come here are without reference to the law. How will you decide? Sibal
- We won't!: CJI
- "As of now, we are not aborting the hearing"- CJI
- Advocate Shyam Deewan reads out from the majority opinion of the Sabarimala review judgment.
- Deewan points out the wordings used in Sabarimala opinion which said that there 'may be overlapping' (on women entry in mosques and paris women entry)
- There is an element of speculation
- There might be issues which could be referred to a larger bench
- Everything in the reference order is in the nature of speculation: Deewan
- NO. The court was aware of all. It was just a doubt of prospect of referring it to a 9 judge bench: CJI
11:30 February 03
- We (9-judge bench) will not be deciding Sabarimala case says CJI Bobde.
- The distinction between Sabarimala and other cases is that Sabarimala is a decided case: Dhawan.
- 5 judges who heard were hearing a review, they had to see if there is any error. They upheld the earlier judgement. Referring order doesn't says that it suffers from any error: Adv Diwedi
- Adv Diwedi supports Narimana
- Keep the right to religion wide. Keep the restrictions to religion to balance: Dhawan
- You have to x ray religion: Dhawan
- I am not saying that religion can be restricted. It is at level of free speech. Public order health morality: Dhawan
11:30 February 03
- We understand that if we lay down the law it will be beneficial in future. We will decide it in a broader sense- CJI
- Singhvi suggests that once again issues to be decided by the judges and along with that the lawyers issues to be included.
- Review can not adhourned and postponed...he supports Nariman's point of view: Adv Rajeev Dhawan
- In my view essential practices a flawed approach: Dhawan
- In 1990 cases what was added was that it must be essential and integral. Does the court have a right to tell the person that what is religion?: Dhawan
Jaisin doesn't agree with Dhawan's contention
11:18 February 03
- A crime can not be protected under 25 26 under any facts of circumstances: CJI
- If 9 judges bench say something it is going to have a very huge impact everywhere. It is a very sensitive issue. Any statement you make my lord is going to impact the community across the globe- Sr Adv Kapil Sibal
- CJI says that they were told by a section of Muslims that we don't restrict women from entering
- Adv Indira Jainsin urges court to treat it is as prelia minary issue
11:18 February 03
- I am not suggesting that 9 judge constitution bench should not deal with the questions. It is the court's prerogative- Nariman
- We are going to decide articles that can be invoked in such cases and also Sabrimala- CJI
- We will not be hearing preliminary manner- CJI
- CJI says that they will frame the contention of Narimana and Deewan's issue and hear it along with other issues-CJI
- Nariman is saying that court should decide the issues when the matter is heard instead of referring it to other bench
11:13 February 03
- CJI SA Bobde says that the Court is hearing the larger issues on the basis of Order 6 Rule 2
- The review of Sabrimala is not with us, the order says that it will be decided later...we are deciding on other issues and thar is what we are supposed to do- CJI
- There are questions which arose in Sabrimala and questions which arose in similar petitions like Muslim women entering the mosques- CJI
11:11 February 03
- We have certain questions referred to us. What is referred to us is not review Petition-. CJI
- CJI asks Nariman that the bench would like to know what they want to address.
- An advocate says that minority opinion has gone against it.
- Matter may be referred to a larger Bench when the Court feels that some questions need to be decided by a Bench of larger strength: SG Tushar Mehta
11:05 February 03
Adv Deewan supports Nariman and asks the judges to hear them
- The facts in the Sabarimala case are in judgment of Justice Mishra. The scope of review is extremely limited: Nariman
- scope of the review is very limited and the jurisdiction is limited: Nariman
- Nariman questions the decision of the bench headed by the then CJI Ranjan Gogoi to refer larger questions during deciding on a review petition
11:04 February 03
He stated that there is no need to frame the questions and other issues if relevant, in an open court.
- An advocate asks if it lies within the review Petition
- We may not agree here: SG Tushar Mehta
- SG Tushar Mehta suggests that judges can decide it in the chambers
Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta told the Apex Court that the issues can be framed in the chambers itself.
10:54 February 03
Nine-judge bench of SC commenced hearing of Sabrimala case
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday resumed the exercise of framing questions to be deliberated upon by it in dealing with the issue of discrimination against women in various religions, including the matter of entry of females at Sabarimala temple in Kerala.
The new bench constituted was headed by Chief Justice of India SA Bobde.
Other judges in the bench are Justices R Banumathi, L Nageswara Rao, Ashok Bhushan, Mohan M Shantanagoudar, S Abdul Nazeer, R Subhash Reddy, BR Gavai, and Surya Kant.
Two judges, Justice RF Nariman and DY Chandrachud who ruled in favour of women's entry in Sabarimala case aren't part of the new bench and the woman judge, Justice Indu Malhotra who ruled against women's entry, is also not part of the new bench either.
A reference relating to discrimination of women in various religions was made to a larger bench through a judgment delivered on November 14 last year in the Sabarimala case.
The bench has to frame questions which have a reason in various petitions relating to entry of Muslim women in two mosques, the practice of female genital mutilation in Dawoodi bohra Muslim community and denial of right to Parsi women who have married outside their religion.
He had fixed a 10-day period for concluding the hearing on the petition seeking women's entry into Sabarimala temple, mosques, and Parsi Agiyari. The Apex Court had on January 13 said that it will only hear the questions referred to in the review order passed by it in November last year in the Sabarimala temple case, which allowed women and girls of all age groups to visit the shrine in Kerala.
Intro:Body:Conclusion:
Last Updated : Feb 3, 2020, 12:44 PM IST
