[Framing Of Issues Referred Sabarimala Reference] Live-Updates From Supreme Court

Nariman says that this decision is sought to be reviewed. It’s governed by Order 47.

CJI asks whether Nariman means that while hearing a review of one judgement, the Bench cannot refer others questions that arise to a larger Bench.

Nariman: I am not suggesting that you should not constitute a 9 judge bench. I’m only questioning whether you can set this precedent.

Nariman, referring to issues answered by 5-judge bench in Sabarimala :

"Whether Ayappa temple a part of religious denomination ? Answer was No.

Whether religious denomination would violate equality ? Answer was Yes.”

Nariman : The SC held that the following questions and these were answered by a 5 judge Bench : whether exclusionary practice based on biological factors constituted an essential religious practice? Answer was No.

Sr Adv Nariman says all issues in Sabarimala referred by a 3 judge bench in 2017 were answered by 5-judge bench judgment in 2018.

We are not deciding the Sabarimala review. We are deciding on the basis of Order 6 Rule 2 : CJI Bobde

CJI Bobde - Maybe. There is a order where certain issues are referred to us.

CJI states that there are other cases as well, such as Muslim women’s demand to enter the mosques, FGM in Dawoodi Bohra, the issue of Parsis.

The review bench found that there is a greater issue at hand concerning Article 25,26 and other fundamental rights

CJI Bobde says, There is a referral order before us.

Sr Adv Nariman says "its an adjournment order".

SG Tushar Mehta - This is being revisited to decide the larger issues. Your lordships stated that no facts are going to be referred.

SG interjects and talks about Order 6 Rule 2. During the course of hearing of review, if the Bench decides that there are other issues that need to be discussed, then the Lordships can exercise jurisdiction. Contours can be decided accordingly.

Fali S Nariman : The questions should be decided on the basis of facts The scope of the review is extremely limited. Is the answer to the question correct or not correct ? It’s a limited jurisdiction.