[Sabarimala Reference] Nine Judge Bench Hearing -Live-Updates From Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

6 Feb 2020 10:38 AM IST

  • [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.


    Live Updates

    • 6 Feb 2020 4:12 PM IST

      The 9-judge bench reserves orders on preliminary issue of possibility of reference in review.

      Order to be pronounced on February 10.

    • 6 Feb 2020 4:07 PM IST

      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.

    • 6 Feb 2020 4:02 PM IST

      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.”

    • 6 Feb 2020 3:57 PM IST

      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.

    • 6 Feb 2020 3:55 PM IST

      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.

    • 6 Feb 2020 3:50 PM IST

      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

    • 6 Feb 2020 3:49 PM IST

      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.”

    • 6 Feb 2020 3:47 PM IST

      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.

    • 6 Feb 2020 3:44 PM IST

      C S Vaidyanathan : Art. 32 is a Sui generis jurisdiction; a special jurisdiction. It cannot be equated with any other forms of jurisdiction.

    • 6 Feb 2020 3:42 PM IST

      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.

    Next Story