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 on January 22, 2018, in open court.
However, the Bench of
CJI Ranjan Gogoi and
JusticesRohinton Nariman, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud and
Indu Malhotra clarified that there is no stay on the judgment of September 28, 2018, of the Supreme Court. In its order, the Bench said that
“we make it clear that there is no stay of judgment dated September 28, 2018 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No.373 of 2006 (
Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. v. The State of Kerala & Ors.)
.”
Earlier in the day, the Supreme Court had deferred the hearing of the fresh petitions pertaining to the entry of women into Sabarimala temple. The Bench comprising of
CJI Ranjan Gogoi and
JusticesSanjay Kishan Kaul and
K.M. Joseph had heard four petitioners – G. Vijayakumar, S. Jaya Raj Kumar, Shylaja Vijayan, and Akhil Bharatiya Malayalee Sangh, before deferring the hearing of the same. The Bench had said that the writ petitions will be heard subject to the decision of the review petitions filed against the Sabarimala verdict. 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
CJI Dipak 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...
274 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