9-Judge Bench To Hear Sabarimala Women Entry Case From April 7: Top Court

The Supreme Court has set itself two weeks – April 7 to April 22 – to complete hearing a clutch of petitions relating to an earlier judgement that allowed women of all ages entry into Kerala's famous Sabarimala Temple. A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul M Pancholi, posted the matter to a nine-judge bench.

The hearing will begin at 10.30 am on April 7, the court said Monday morning as it announced a tight schedule. Petitions seeking a review of the earlier verdict will be heard from April 7 to April 9, while those opposing it will be heard from April 14 to April 16, the top court said.

Rejoinders, if any, will be heard April 21 to be followed concluding submissions.

The bench asked all lawyers to adhere to the time schedule and asked for written submissions to be filed on or before March 14.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the union government, said he supported pleas for review of the Sabarimala verdict. Bench-appointed lawyer Krishna Kumar Singh was declared the nodal counsel for parties supporting the review of the Sabarimala verdict.

Shashwati Pari was named the nodal counsel for those opposing the review.

"We also deem it appropriate that Senior Advocate K Parameshwar, with Shivam Singh, are appointed as amicus. Singh shall submit stand taken by all parties before this court."

An earlier nine-judge bench set up in 2019 had lapsed because eight of its members have since retired. The ninth was Justice Surya Kant, who became Chief Justice in November last year.

These petitions were listed alongside those relating to Muslim women's entry into mosques and Parsi women's entry into Fire Temples if they had married a non-Parsi individual, as well as the validity of the practice of female genital mutilation among Dawoodi Bohra community.

In November 2019, a five-judge observed, in a 3-2 ruling, that certain issues in the Sabarimala review were common to the cases pending on the above issues, and it was decided to keep the former pending till a larger bench decided questions about essential religious practices, specifically if the court could interfere in such practices.

In January 2020, the court notified the constitution of a nine-judge bench to consider these issues and, in February, the bench held the reference was maintainable and that questions of law could be referred to a larger bench in review.

It framed seven issues for consideration, one of which, the question on the court's jurisdiction, had already been settled.

The remaining questions:

1. Whether a person not belonging to a religious denomination or religious group can question a practice of that religious denomination or religious group by filing a public interest litigation?
2. What is the scope and extent of judicial review with regard to a religious practice as referred to in Article 25 of the Constitution of India?
3. What is the scope and extent of the word ‘morality' under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India and whether it is meant to include Constitutional morality?
4. What is the scope and ambit of right to freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution of India?
5. What is the inter-play between the rights of persons under Article 25 of the Constitution of India and rights of religious denomination under Article 26 of the Constitution of India?
6. Whether the rights of a religious denomination under Article 26 of the Constitution of India are subject to other provisions of Part III of the Constitution of India apart from public order, morality and health? What is the meaning of expression “Sections of Hindus” occurring in Article 25 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India?