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

Dhavan : Religion is at the same level as free speech. The real balance is on the restrictions of right to religion. That is to be decided. The distinction between Sabarimala and other cases is that the former is a decided case.

Dhawan : My particular view is that the reference to this bench in the light of the 7 judge bench ( Shirur Mutt) in the cases not decided is perfectly valid.

Sr. Adv. Rajeev Dhawan states that there are two points:

1. Reference is permissible.

2. Nariman is absolutely right. When there is a decided case and a review pending, it goes into a character of its own. This review cannot be adjourned or postponed.

Singhvi suggests the framing of a charter in order to proceed. Otherwise we will keep arguing whether we should even start.

Sr Adv Dr A M Singhvi - Problem is we have to decide what to decide.

This has now become an argument of “if to decide”. Instead of deciding what the issues are, we are deciding whether we can proceed even. I don’t agree with this. This has become the review of the 9 judge bench’s preliminary views !

Sibal: How do you interpret 21, 17 and 14 ? Any statement that you make will impact everyone across the country. It will impact the caste system. How do you decide ?

SG interjects that the Bench has consciously decided to hear this issue. My learned friends want to take us backwards.

Sr Adv Kapil Sibal

- These are matters that will have impact across the country and all religious denominations.

CJI Bobde - With respect to entry of Muslim women in mosques, there are some sections who say that women can enter the mosque but cannot pray along with the men.

Sr. Adv. Indira Jaising: No issue can be decided devoid of facts. A short question there: whether by virtue of marriage, she loses her religion of birth ? This is unrelated to Art. 25, 26. These are threshold issues. Art. 25 and 26 are not even reached.

CJI observes that this submission of Sr Adv Nariman - that 9-judge bench cannot be constituted on review jurisdiction- can be considered as an issue.

Sr Adv Indira Jaising urges Court to treat this as a preliminary issue.