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.

Reported by: Akhil Oka
Follow: Google News Icon
  • share
null | Image: self
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.  

Read: SC's Sabarimala Verdict Expands Scope, Includes Issues Pertaining To Or Religions

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. 

Read: EXCLUSIVE: Details Of First RTI Supreme Court Has To Respond To After Landmark Judgement

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. 

Read: Sabarimala Review Plea: Justice Nariman And Justice Chandrachud Pen Dissenting Judgment

Advertisement

Read: SC To Women Seeking Protection For Sabarimala: It’s An Emotive Issue, Please Have Patience

18:50 IST, January 7th 2020