New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday said it will decide if a review bench of the court has the jurisdiction to refer the Sabarimala case to a larger bench and include broader issues involved in it.
On 14 November, a five-judge bench of the SC had asked a larger bench to examine various religious issues, including women’s entry to Sabarimala, mosques and other places of worship, and the practice of female genital mutilation in the Dawoodi Bohra community.
The apex court will also frame legal questions to be adjudicated by a nine-judge bench on religious discrimination against women and not just in the case of Sabarimala after senior counsels failed to arrive at a consensus.
The bench shall now assemble on 6 February to fix dates, issues and allotment of time to the advocates.
Usually, it is the plaintiff and the defendant who approach the court with the questions or issues to be argued upon. The parties then seek a particular relief/direction from the court with respect to their issues.
Senior advocates Fali Sam Nariman, Kapil Sibal and Shyam Divan had argued against the nine judge bench broadening the contours of questions arising over women's entry into Sabarimala and extending it to women's entry into mosques and agiyaris.
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, former attorney general K Parasaran and former solicitor general Ranjit Kumar, on the other hand, submitted before the court that the nine-judge bench can decide the broader issue of faith versus fundamental rights.
“There are at least six judgments of Supreme Court that says while deciding a review bench cannot refer issues to a larger bench,” senior advocate Nariman said. In review cases of the Supreme Court, the review bench cannot refer issues involved in other cases to a larger bench, he added.
“Possibly formidable points. I am not aware of that. We will hear you and also the counter. We are not going to decide this now (only after hearing all),” Chief Justice Bobde replied.
Parasaran countered and argued that the SC need not be confined to Sabarimala issue alone as the genesis of the case was a public interest litigation (PIL) and not a personal dispute. In PIL, the Court can look into past, present and the future. He added that while deciding review on PILs, the Supreme Court can introduce larger issues and refer the case to larger Bench.
"We could not agree to the questions framed by everyone. Judges can consider framing the issues in chamber", Mehta said.
Prathma Sharma contributed to the story
