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

Divan : The reference to this bench on the review will cause a serious of jurisprudence issues.

Sr Adv Nariman : Yes that's rights. There is a series of judgments of this decision.

Divan : The reference to this bench on the review will cause a serious of jurisprudence issues.

Sr Adv Nariman : Yes that's rights. There is a series of judgments of this decision.

Divan states that this is all in a realm of speculation. He refers to the CJI’s Bobde’s opinion in a judgement that 9 judge benches are rare and therefore, the issues need to be construed in the narrowest manner possible.

Divan refers to Ashok Hurra case. He states that the writ petitions have to be ruled out, and what should remain is the review petition.

Court was aware of the review and writ petitions. The only issue was regarding the point of reference, CJI states.

Shyam Diwan: 1. Please see the set of cases. First you will find a review petition and then a series of writ petitions.

2. CJ Gogoi’s opening paragraph - Ordinarily review petitions proceed on the principle of Order 47. In later paras: Entry of women into worship places is not limited to this case.

Divan continues that the Court observes that the issues may be overlapping and covered by judgements of review.

Also, the prospect of arriving at a reference of these issues to a larger Bench cannot be ruled out.

SG interjects and said that everyone had already given suggestions, and now they’re saying that it’s not maintainable.

Sr. Adv. Shyam Divan says that he has a large number of points to make. It’s supplementing what Mr. Nariman says. I request you to please take up the reference order of 14.11.2019.

Sibal .: How will we harmonise Art. 25 and 26. 26 states that I can exclude people from the temple, but 25 is for freedom to practice. For this, principle of harmonious construction is used. 26 is not subject to 25 otherwise. This decision was given without reference.

Sr. Adv. Kapil Sibal states that Art. 25 is subject to Part 3. Part 3 means 14. 14 means state action. That means law.

Lot of these petitions which have come here are without reference. How will you deal with that ? Those are the precise questions.

Reference order does not consider the merits at all - Rakesh Dwivedi.

CJI: We will also frame this objection as an issue and hear it. We are only going to decide the interpretation of those articles which have been invoked in Sabarimala.

Sr. Adv. Rakesh Dwivedi states that he also supports Nariman’s views.