Sabarimala Reference : Live Updates From Supreme Court 9-Judge Bench

Update: 2026-04-07 05:24 GMT
Click the Play button to listen to article
Live Updates - Page 9
2026-04-07 05:50 GMT

SG: Shia and sunni muslims. mylords are not examining theologicial part. But it should consider that Islam is not just Islam and Hinduism is not just Hinduism. mylords may bear in mind while interpreting religion and religious affairs.

2026-04-07 05:50 GMT

SG: central gov is not taking any extreme views. Neither in Shrir Mutt to Sabarimala, 3 things not noticed

a. constituent assembly debates

b. enormity and width of religious in this country- country is having very proud plurality, beautiful part is internal plurality- Hinduism has sub-denominations, each has independent denominations. Same is with Islam, it has one particular holy book and one particular originator but it has internal plurality.

2026-04-07 05:49 GMT

SG: its time court should evolve a judicial policy, its not one judgment being right or wrong. Judicial policy and for authoritative enunciation of not less than 7 judges because shrir mutt is 7 judges. your lordhships will have to interpret Article 25(1)- religion, Article 25(2)- religious practices and 26(b)- to manage affairs relating to religion.

2026-04-07 05:44 GMT

SG begins.

SG: when the court referred matter to 9 judge, CJI Gogoi is the author but he was also the author of the Adi Saiva judgment which takes note of law from Shrir Mutt and till this date. Keeping this in mind, please see why we are before the court.

2026-04-07 05:41 GMT

SG: I agree with Jaising.

CJI: You have given timelines, and I have done consultation with my brother judges and sister judge. Let's see how it goes.

2026-04-07 05:38 GMT

Sr Adv Hegde: mylords may formally rename the matter in terms of the questions referred.

counsels arguing if the question is hearing review of Sabarimala or if it will be limited to answering questions referred.

2026-04-07 05:37 GMT

Sr Adv Singhvi: on each question, mylords my hear the principal parties.

2026-04-07 05:36 GMT

Sr Adv Jaising: one clarification we would like, the review petition would not be heard. if it is to be heard, I would argue that it doesn't lie. Mylords have to decide on the questions. There is no mandamus of the earlier judgment on stay. We would address the issues without concerning the judgment.

2026-04-07 05:31 GMT

SG: lordships would be answering questions referred, others need not to be gone into. Some have gone into personal laws, right of educational institutions. We are only concerned about Article 25.

2026-04-07 05:30 GMT

SG: What I have done, the relevant paras I have extracted in the written submissions.

Similar News