Published 18:50 IST, January 7th 2020
Sabarimala review: CJI Bobde to head 9-judge Constitution Bench
The Supreme Court set up a 9-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Sharad Arvind Bobde to hear the right to pray matter from January 13 onwards.
Advertisement
On Tuesday, Supreme Court constituted a 9-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Sharad Arvind Bobde to hear 'right to pray' matter from January 13 onwards. or judges in Bench are Justices Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan, L Nswara Rao, Mohan Shantanagoudar, Abdul Nazeer, R Subhash Reddy, BR Gavai and Surya Kant. This development comes nearly two months after a 5-member Constitution Bench comprising former Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Nariman, Justice Khanwilkar, Justice Chandrachud and Justice Malhotra decided to expand scope of Sabarimala review pleas and referred it to a larger bench for adjudication.
Advertisement
majority judgment expands scope of Sabarimala matter
majority judgment had referred a whole range of issues including entry of women in mosques and tower of silence, legality of female genital mutilation in Dawoodi Bohra community along with Sabarimala matter to a larger bench. Former CJI Ranjan Gogoi observed that both sections of same religious groups had right to propagate religious practices. reafter, he added that issues arising in present case and regarding Muslim women and Parsi women may be overlapping. Furrmore, he contended that it was high time that SC evolved a judicial policy to do justice to constitutional principles.
Advertisement
Dissenting judgment
Justice Nariman and Justice Chandrachud wrote dissenting judgment. Justice Nariman stated that issues of Muslim or Parsi women could t be clubbed with Sabarimala matter as y were t before court. He opined that original judgment was based on a bonafide Public Interest Litigation which raised issue about women being denied entry on basis of ir physiological features. Making strong remarks against violent agitations following original SC verdict, Justice Nariman deemed that while bonafide criticism of judgment was permissible, thwarting orders of court could t be countenanced. He ted that once a judgment was prounced, it was binding on all.
Advertisement
18:50 IST, January 7th 2020