Sabarimala review plea: Justice Nariman and Justice Chandrachud pen dissenting judgment

While a 5-member Constitution bench of Supreme Court referred Sabarimala review pleas to a 7-member larger bench by a 3:2 verdict on vember 14, Justice Nariman and Justice Chandrachud wrote dissenting judgments. Justice Nariman read out dissenting judgment and 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: CJI Ranjan Gogoi: "I Wish For Your Good Wishes For My Second Phase"

Multiple issues to be clubbed

While delivering its verdict, majority judgment of apex court clubbed entry of women in mosques and tower of silence, legality of female genital mutilation in Dawoodi Bohra community along with Sabarimala issue. However, in light of contrary orders from Supreme Court, petitions have been kept pending. re will t be a stay on earlier judgment which allowed entry of women between group of 10 to 50 years in Sabarimala temple, Kerala.   

Read: CJI Ranjan Gogoi Says, ' NRC Is A Base Document For Future'

Conflicting opinions

On September 28, 2018, SC lifted ban on entry of women belonging to all groups in Sabarimala temple. Justice Indu Malhotra prounced dissenting judgment in case. She observed that it was t up to courts to decide if such religious practices should be struck down. Justice Malhotra contended that rationality had  place in matters of faith.  4:1 verdict had sparked off huge protests across Kerala. Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) which mans shrine, argued that SC could t interfere with a century-old belief. ban on entry of women has been justified on grounds that Lord Ayyappa, presiding deity is celibate. On or hand, government of Kerala supported verdict maintaining that religious practices that clashed with fundamental rights could be set aside. After hearing review petition filed by TDB, Pandalam Royal Family and a group of devotees, Constitution bench had reserved its verdict on February 5. 

Read: MASSIVE: SC Brings CJI's Office Under RTI, Upholds Delhi HC's 2010 Order

Read: Sabarimala Review Plea Kept Pending By Supreme Court; Matter Referred To A 7-judge Bench