A Supreme Court Constitution Bench, on Friday, 10 February, referred the question regarding the rights of the Dawoodi Bohra community to excommunicate its members to a nine-Judge Bench which is set to decide the correctness of the ‘first Sabarimala judgement.'
The bench hearing the case had reserved its judgment in October last year.
The top court is deciding on the rights of the Bohra community to excommunicate dissidents from its community with respect to its fundamental rights under Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India.
A 1962 judgment in which the apex court had protected the community's rights to excommunicate members, was being examined by the Constitution Bench because the Maharashtra Protection of People from Social Boycott (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act in 2016 had outlawed excommunication.
What Happened In Court?
The bench comprising Justices SK Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, Abhay S Oka, Vikram Nath, JK Maheshwari had heard out the petitioning parties who requested that the Court wait for a nine-judge bench decision in the Sabarimala matter or refer the present case also to a nine-judge bench, according to Bar and Bench.
The 9-judge bench referred to by the parties is slated to settle the legal issues which arose pursuant to the Sabarimala temple entry case.
In the Sabarimala case, the issue was with respect to entry of women into the Sabarimala hill shrine in Kerala.
The nine-judge bench will be considering that as well as three other cases involving women’s rights with respect to religious practices.
"Either Your Lordships may say that this can be reconsidered in the nine-judge bench or you may consider it and assist the nine judges," Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had submitted before the Court, Live Law reported.
He also argued that the reconsideration of the 1962 judgment, which was also rendered by five judges, may not be possible by a bench of the same strength.
However, Senior Counsel Fali Nariman submitted that the case should be deferred till the nine-judge bench gives its judgement.
Responding to this, the Court had finally decided to reserve its verdict.
(With inputs from LiveLaw)
(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.)