The Supreme Court today i.e., January 22, 2019, declined an urgent hearing of petitions seeking a review of its judgment passed on
September 28, 2018, allowing women of menstruating age to enter the Sabarimala temple in Kerala.
The refusal came when advocate Mathews Nedumpara mentioned the matter in the court.
Chief Justice of IndiaRanjan Gogoi said that he cannot fix a date for hearing the review petitions as
JusticeIndu Malhotra is on medical leave till January 30, 2019.
“We cannot fix a date, we have to ascertain from the learned judge (Justice Indu Malhotra) when she will be back and then we will decide a date. She is on leave till January 30,” CJI Gogoi said.
The matter was scheduled to be listed for today. However, on
January 15, 2019, CJI Gogoi revealed that it was unlikely to come up today, as Justice Malhotra was on medical leave. The Supreme Court on
November 13, 2018, has agreed to hear the forty-nine review petitions filed against its
September 28, 2018, judgment
allowing women of all ages’ entry into the Sabarimala temple in open court. The review petitions were listed before a Bench headed by
CJI Gogoi, along with
JusticesInduMalhotra,
Rohinton Nariman, A.M. Khanwilkar, and
D.Y. Chandrachud. A Constitution Bench by 4:1 majority struck down
Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965, to allow entry of women, irrespective of their age, into the Sabarimala Ayyappa temple in Kerala. The Bench headed by then
CJIDipak Misra and comprising of
Justices Rohinton Nariman, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud, and
Indu Malhotra held that Rule 3(b) of 1965 Rules which bars entry of women between the ages of 10 and 50 years into the Sabarimala temple is a clear violation of right of Hindu women to practice religion under
Article 25 of the Constitution of India. Following the judgment, violence had erupted in and around the temple to prevent women from entering the shrine.
To Do Complete Justice Under Art 142, Not Necessary to Refer to Facts to Decide Pure Questions of Law: SC [READ ORDER]
Judiciary
May 12, 2020
Parth Thummar
(
Editor: Ekta Joshi
)
68 Shares
A nine-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court headed by CJI had reserved its order on the maintainability of the reference of a question of law to a larger bench in a review petition of Sabarimala judgment on February 06, 2020, and for which order pronounced on February 10, 2020. On May 11, 2020, the SC has given a detailed explanation for its order. The Order authored by CJI held that there is no fetter on the exercise of discretion of the Supreme Court in referring questions of law to a...
What Is The Whole Sabarimala Issue Afterall?
Speak Legal
Feb 13, 2020
Lawstreet News Network
23 Shares
“Religion cannot be a cover to deny women the right to worship...To treat women as children of a lesser God is to blink at constitutional morality.”- Justice DY Chandrachud. The religious terminology: The Sabarimala temple is considered to be an abode of Lord Ayyappa, located in the Periyar Tiger Reserve in Pathanamthitta district of Kerala. The place is a heritage site dedicated to one of the largest annual pilgrimages in the world as every year, millions of people...
292 Views
![Criminal Appeal Cases to be Heard Physically from 1st October: Bombay HC [READ NOTICE]](https://lawstreet.co/secure/uploads/2020/10/lj_7123_bombay.jpeg)
Facebook Comments