Sabarimala: SC Begins Hearing Arguments on Religious Freedom
Catch all the updates of the Sabarimala review petitions’ hearing here.
A nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Monday, 17 February, started hearing arguments pertaining to the scope of religious freedom in various religions.
A bench headed by Chief Justice SA Bobde had, on 10 February, framed seven questions to be heard by a nine-judge Constitutional bench on issues relating to freedom of religion under the Constitution and faith.
Earlier in January, the apex court had given three weeks to all the lawyers for framing of issues relating to women’s entry into Sabarimala temple and all other religious matters.
- The bench observed that it will follow the hearing procedure streamlined during the Ayodhya title dispute case, wherein the court hearing lasted only 40 days
- The court noted that major parties involved in this case will have to wrap up their arguments in a day, with two hours each for rejoinders
- The court said that Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, will open the arguments on the matter, followed by senior advocate K Parasaran on 17 February
- The historic 28 September 2018 judgment had allowed women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala temple
Nine-Judge Bench Begins Hearing Arguments on Religious Freedom
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta presented arguments on behalf of the Centre first, according to a ‘batting order’ agreed by the battery of lawyers involved in the case, including senior advocates K Parasaran, Fali Nariman, Indira Jaising and Kapil Sibal.
The SG argued that the right to practice one’s religion under Article 25 under the Constitution and for ‘religious denominations’ to manage their religious affairs, are both “subject to public order, morality and health”. As a result, these religious rights can be regulated on these three grounds even when it comes to essential religious practices. He has also asserted that in interpreting these rights, the apex court can consider their relation to other fundamental rights and even the Preamble of the Constitution.
Mehta pointed out that the court would need to decide in the course of these hearings what counts as a ‘religious denomination’ and a religion.
Sabarimala Case: SC to Examine Scope of Religious Freedom Today
The Supreme Court on Monday, 10 February, held that its five-judge bench can refer questions of law to a larger bench while exercising its limited power under review jurisdiction in the Sabarimala case.
A bench headed by Chief Justice SA Bobde framed seven questions to be heard by a nine-judge Constitutional bench on issues relating to freedom of religion under the Constitution and faith. The court proposed to hear on a day-to-day basis from 17 February questions framed on scope of religious freedom in various religions.
The seven questions framed by the bench include those on scope and ambit of religious freedom, and interplay between religious freedom and freedom of beliefs of religious denominations.
SC Gives 3 Weeks to Frame Issues on Sabarimala, Other Religious Matters
The Supreme Court gives three weeks to all the lawyers for framing of issues relating to women’s entry into Sabarimala temple and all other religious matters.
CJI SA Bobde, heading the nine-judge Constitution bench said that he's looking to list all the matters regarding Dawoodi Bora, FGM, Muslim women in mosques, etc. before the bench. The court ordered that the Secretary General of Supreme Court will convene a conference of all lawyers to discuss the framing of issues on 17 January.
The points to be looked into by the meeting are the reframing or addition of issues, time-bound arguments by the counsels and the points to be argued and by whom.
SC Won’t Hear Sabarimala Pleas, Only Suggestions of Previous Bench
The nine-judge bench clarified that its not hearing the review petitions against Sabarimala verdict, but only the questions referred in the review order passed on 14 November.
Nine-Judge Bench to Begin Hearing Sabarimala Case
A nine-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court is scheduled to commence hearing a batch of pleas on the issue of allowing women of all ages to enter Kerala's Sabarimala temple, along with other contentious issues of alleged discrimination against Muslim and Parsi women.
What the Previous Bench Said
The top court had on 6 January issued a notice informing about listing of the batch of petitions seeking review of the 2018 judgement.
While referring the matter to a larger bench, the five-judge bench had, however, said that the debate about the constitutional validity of religious practices like bar on entry of women and girls into a place of worship was not limited to the Sabarimala case.
The top court said such restrictions are there with regard to entry of Muslim women into mosques and ‘dargahs’ and Parsi women, married to non-Parsi men, being barred from the holy fire place of an Agyari.
It said it was time for the apex court to evolve a judicial policy to do “substantial and complete justice”.
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)