As per the latest notice served, a Nine Judges Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court will hear questions referred in the Sabarimala Case, commencing from next Monday, 13th Jan 2020.
It is to be noted that the notice issued by Officer on Special Duty (Listing) doesn't mention the name of Judges and thus read as:
In an earlier notice issued by a registry to the concerned parties, it had been requested from them to file four more complete sets of paper books.
In furtherance, on Nov 13, the five-Judge bench of the Supreme Court (3:2) had referred certain legal issues before the larger bench and had kept the review petitions in Sabarimala pending.
The majority Judges had observed that the matters involving the interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution touching upon the right to profess, practice and propagate its own religion, should be heard by a larger bench, for an authoritative pronouncement in these matters.
During the hearing, Bindu Ammini and Rehna Fathima sought protection, while CJI SA Bobde had remarked on the same, saying "2018 verdict is not the last word". He had in that hearing only, provided assurance that he will set up the Seven Judges bench soon to settle the issue.
The Supreme Court, in the order issued, had also mentioned about three other pending cases before it, in which there are some issues overlapping and covered by the Sabarimala Judgment of 28th September 2018.
Out of the three, two [Female Genital Mutilation and Parsi Women Religious Identity] are before the Constitution Bench of five judges, while the left one [Muslim Women Entry In Mosques] is pending consideration before a three-judge bench.
Following issues are supposed to be considered by the Nine Judge Bench:
(i) Regarding the interplay between the freedom of religion under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution and other provisions in Part III, particularly Article 14.
(ii) What is the sweep of expression 'public order, morality and health' occurring in Article 25(1) of the Constitution?
(iii) The expression 'morality' or 'constitutional morality' has not been defined in the Constitution. Is it overarching morality in reference to preamble or limited to religious beliefs or faith. There is need to delineate the contours of that expression, lest it becomes subjective
(iv) The extent to which the court can inquire into the issue of a particular practice is an integral part of the religion or religious practice of a particular religious denomination or should that be left exclusively to be determined by the head of the section of the religious group.
(v) What is the meaning of the expression 'sections of Hindus' appearing in Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution?
(v) Whether the "essential religious practices" of a religious denomination or even a section thereof are afforded constitutional protection under Article 26.
(vi) What would be the permissible extent of judicial recognition to PILs in matters calling into question religious practices of a denomination or a section thereof at the instance of persons who do not belong to such religious denomination?
It is been expected that It might also deal with the question of whether the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 govern the temple in question at all?
What's been held in the review petition filed in Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras vs. Shri Lakshmindra Tirtha Swamiar of Shirur Mutt (Shirur Mutt)?
Picture Source :
