[Sabarimala Reference] Nine Judge Bench Hearing -Live-Updates From Supreme Court
The 9-judge bench of the Supreme Court constituted to answer the questions mentioned in the Sabarimala review order will consider the preliminary issue whether a reference is possible in a review...
The 9-judge bench of the Supreme Court constituted to answer the questions mentioned in the Sabarimala review order will consider the preliminary issue whether a reference is possible in a review petition.
The 9-judge bench reserves orders on preliminary issue of possibility of reference in review.
Order to be pronounced on February 10.
Jaising submits that the seniors who have submitted the arguments are about whether it can be passed in writ petitions; the question here is about the review. She also adds that in the Navtej Johar case, it wasn’t about the review.
Nariman in rebuttal arguments now. He states that the other lawyers have not answered the questions raised in 5 and 7 judge benches. “None of the cases have been answered, otherwise they become entirely academic.”
Narasimha : He states that there is no other choice; no other alternative, but for the reference to take place as the matter involved questions of law pertaining to fundamental rights.
With this he concludes.
Sr. Adv. V Giri makes his submissions.
1. It is a constitutional jurisdiction. Unless the Constitution provides a bar, we cannot read into it a bar.
2. Review petitions are not being heard. They’ve been kept pending.
With this, he concludes. Sr. Adv. Narasimha begins his submissions.
Ranjit Kumar : This hearing just now is a review of a review order. The objection should have been placed before the 5 judge bench which heard the matter in open court
Sr. Adv. Ranjit Kumar referring to a 1998 4 SCC 81 judgement to state
“Art. 32 is still in Part 3. It’s a FR and it’s for protection of FR. Therefore, it has an extraordinary or original jurisdiction. A guaranteed jurisdiction. You become the first court and the last Court.”
C S Vaidyanathan referrring to Shivanandan Pasan (1987 1 SCC 288) to say that the power can be suo mot exercised to correct an error apparent.
C S Vaidyanathan : Art. 32 is a Sui generis jurisdiction; a special jurisdiction. It cannot be equated with any other forms of jurisdiction.
Vaidyanathan : Art. 137 is governed by Order 47 and therefore, unless there is a formal order, this cannot move forward. I respectfully submit that the jurisdiction under Art. 32 has been kept in mind while keeping in view the grounds under Order 47.