Supreme Court LIVE updates: Sabarimala referred to 7-judge bench, Rafale reviews dismissed

A Delhi court will not pronounce the verdict in the case of alleged sexual and physical assault on several girls at a shelter home in Muzaffarpur, which was run by former Bihar People’s Party (BPP) MLA Brajesh Thakur. 

Rafale bench assembles. The Supreme court is delivering its verdict on the petitions seeking a review of its judgment declining to order a probe into the Rafale MMRCA fighter jet deal with French firm Dassault Aviation. Justice Kaul reads the verdict. Justice Kaul says Review petitions in Rafale dismissed. He adds review petitions without any merit.

Justice Kaul says in light of the affidavit filed by Rahul Gandhi we would not like to continue with the contempt proceedings further. Word of caution to Rahul Gandhi by the top court.

The Supreme Court's verdict on contempt proceedings against Rahul Gandhi the 3-judge bench gave a concurring judgment.

No contempt proceedings but Supreme Court cautions Rahul Gandhi to be careful going further. BJP Member of Parliament Meenakshi Lekhi had accused former Congress president Rahul Gandhi of misquoting an order of the SC. Rahul Gandhi had said that the apex court had accepted that ‘chowkidar’ is a ‘chor’. In the run-up to the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, ‘Chowkidar chor hai’ was often used by Gandhi to imply that Prime Minister Narendra Modi had committed wrongdoing with reference to the Rafale deal. After the SC issued a contempt notice against Gandhi, the latter tendered an apology seeking closure of the proceedings.

Pronouncing the verdict on the review petitions of Sabarimala, the Supreme Court on Thursday referred the case to a larger SC bench. While pronouncing the verdict, CJI Ranjan Gogoi said that the idea behind the review petitions was to revive the debate as to what is an integral part of a religion. CJI observed that all religious groups have a right to practice their religions freely. He said the debate about the constitutional validity regarding entry of women into places of religious worship is not limited to this case and said that it is also is seen in cases where women are not allowed to enter the Dargah

The CJI added that it’s time the top court evolves a judicial policy to do complete justice to constitutional principles. The top court highlighted that the issues arising in the Sabarimala case and regarding Muslim women and Parsi women may be overlapping. Then the Court referred the case to a 7-judge bench. The Court said that the larger bench would go beyond the issue of Sabarimala and would consider practices of all faith. 

The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed the contempt proceeding against Rahul Gandhi which was filed by BJP leader Meenakshi Lekhi. In the run-up to the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, the Congress leader attributed his ‘Chowkidar chor hai’ jibe against Prime Minister Narendra Modi to the Apex Court. Following this, Lekhi filed a contempt plea against the leader. After the SC issued a contempt notice against Gandhi, the latter tendered an apology seeking closure of the proceedings. The top court has now accepted his apology and said that it is unfortunate that the contemnor made these statements. 

Pronouncing the judgement, Justice Kaul said the contemnor should have been more careful. The top court observed that a person holding such an important position should be more careful. The Court also said that no Court should be dragged in any political discourse.

The Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions in the Rafale case against its December 14, 2018 judgment upholding the 36 Rafale jets' deal, giving a clean chit to the Modi government. The review petitions asked for a review in the jet deal with French firm Dassault Aviation. The top court rejected the plea that there was a necessity for registration of an FIR in connection with the Rafale deal. The five-judge bench comprising CJI Ranjan Gogoi, Justices S K Kaul, and K M Joseph pronounced the contentious judgment. Justice Kaul, pronouncing the judgment said that the Court found "no merit" in the review petition. The Supreme Court further said, "This Court did not think it appropriate to embark on the roving and fishing inquiry." In May 2019, a three-judge bench had reserved verdict in the petition seeking review of the earlier December 14 judgment on the government-to-government deal to procure 36 Rafale aircraft. 

Delhi Court will not be pronouncing the verdict in the case of alleged sexual and physical assault on several girls at a shelter home in Muzaffarpur pertaining to the continued lawyers' strike in all six district courts in Delhi. Lawyers in Delhi district courts continued to abstain from work on Thursday, demanding the arrest of the policemen who allegedly fired at their colleagues during a clash that took place in early November.

The Saket District Court had reserved its order in the Muzaffarpur case on September 30 after final arguments by the CBI counsel and 11 accused in the case in which former Bihar Social Welfare minister and the then JD(U) leader Manju Verma also faced flak as allegations surfaced that Thakur, the key accused, had links with her husband. She had resigned from her post on August 8, 2018.

I am not making any political statement. In Sabarimala, I was representing Kerala board. The top Court thinks it fit for a larger bench to review it. So I believe it is a partial win. We were of the opinion that faith should not be meddled by judiciary. I also welcome the dissenting judgements. I believe it is a victory of the judiciary.

We had made it clear that the statements were made in heat of the political moment. Sometimes such statements come out in the heat of the moment during a political campaign. It is not a contempt of court. It has been accepted that his intention was not to disrespect court but to make a political statement. We are happy with this verdict.

As Chief Justice of India (CJI), Ranjan Gogoi is set to retire from his post on November 17, the country is awaiting key judgments. After the historic verdict of Ayodhya land dispute case, and a landmark verdict of bringing the CJI's office under RTI, the top court on Thursday is set to deliver a series of crucial judgments. Amid the deadlock in Maharashtra and a temporary hold by the Shiv  Sena on the plea challenging President's rule in the state, the apex court on Thursday will deliver major verdicts that includes Rafale Review petition, Sabarimala review petitions, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's contempt of court case. Additionally, a Delhi court will pronounce the significant and sensitive Muzaffarpur Shelter Home case verdict. 

Here is all that has happened in these cases so far

REVIEW PETITION ON SABARIMALA VERDICT

The Supreme Court on Thursday will pronounce its verdict on the review petition of top court's September 28, 2018 Sabarimala verdict. On February 6 this year, the top court had reserved the verdict in the review petition of its own order of allowing women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala temple in Kerala. A 5-judge Constitution Bench headed by CJI Gogoi will pronounce its judgment on the review petitions. The review petition has been filed by Travancore Devaswom Board, Pandalam Royal Family and group of devotees against apex court's September 28, 2018 verdict. The judgment will be pronounced by a Bench of Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Rohinton Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra. 

What was the Supreme Court's Sabarimala verdict?

In a historic verdict last year, the Supreme Court ended the centuries-old practice and allowed women of all ages to enter Sabarimala temple. The 4:1 judgment of the Supreme Court upheld women's right to worship Lord Ayyappa in Sabarimala. While terming the ban on women in the age group of 10 to 51 as religious patriarchy, the then CJI Dipak Misra declared the discriminatory act as unconstitutional and violative of fundamental rights. The then CJI Misra while pronouncing the judgment also said that women can't be suppressed on the basis of biological aspects and that the same can't get a seal of legitimacy. Justice Indu Malhotra pronounced the dissenting judgment in the case and said it’s not up to the courts to decide if such religious practices should be struck down and that rationality has no place in matters of faith. 

CONTEMPT PETITION AGAINST RAHUL GANDHI

BJP Member of Parliament Meenakshi Lekhi had accused former Congress president Rahul Gandhi of misquoting an order of the SC. Rahul Gandhi had said that the apex court had accepted that ‘chowkidar’ is a ‘chor’. In the run-up to the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, ‘Chowkidar chor hai’ was often used by Gandhi to imply that Prime Minister Narendra Modi had committed wrongdoing with reference to the Rafale deal. After the SC issued a contempt notice against Gandhi, the latter tendered an apology seeking closure of the proceedings. However, Lekhi urged for initiating action against the former Congress president as the apology was not ‘unconditional’. 

RAFALE REVIEW PETITION

The Supreme court will deliver its verdict on the petitions seeking a review of its judgment declining to order a probe into the Rafale MMRCA fighter jet deal with French firm Dassault Aviation on November 14. The bench comprises of CJI Ranjan Gogoi, Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph. In May 2019, a three-judge bench had reserved verdict in the petition seeking review of the earlier December 14 judgment on the government-to-government deal to procure 36 Rafale aircraft. 

What happened during the hearing?

The Supreme Court had looked into three aspects of the deal - the decision-making process, the pricing and the choice of Indian offset partner. It had found no occasion to doubt the decision-making process and said it didn't find anything wrong in the selection of Indian offset partner by manufacturer Dassault. On the third criterion, it had said it wasn't its job to go into the pricing aspects.

However, an error was pointed out in the judgment regarding the pricing details following which the Centre filed correction application. This had to do with the Supreme Court relying on the Central government's assertion - contained in a sealed cover - that the pricing details had been shared with the CAG and the report by the government's auditor had been placed before the Parliament's Public Accounts Committee. However, the CAG report hadn't yet been placed before the PAC at the time that the case was being heard. Even as the Centre sought a correction over what was cited as a misinterpretation of language used in the sealed cover, former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie and activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan had sought a re-examination of the SC's findings.

MUZAFFARPUR SHELTER HOME CASE

A Delhi court is likely to pronounce on Thursday its judgment in the case of alleged sexual and physical assault on several girls at a shelter home in Muzaffarpur, which was run by former Bihar People’s Party (BPP) MLA Brajesh Thakur. The court reserved its order on September 30 after final arguments by the CBI counsel and 11 accused in the case in which former Bihar Social Welfare minister and the then JD(U) leader Manju Verma also faced flak as allegations surfaced that Thakur, the key accused, had links with her husband. She had resigned from her post on August 8, 2018.

What is the case about?

Several girls were allegedly raped and sexually abused at an NGO-run shelter home in Muzaffarpur, Bihar. The issue had come to light following a report by the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS). The TISS report was given to the Bihar Government on May 26, 2018, highlighting the alleged sexual abuses of minor girls in the shelter home for the first time. On May 29 last year the state government shifted the girls from the shelter home to other protection homes. On May 31, 2018, FIR was lodged against the 11 accused in the case. The top court had on August 2 taken cognisance of the alleged sexual assaults of minor girls in Muzaffarpur’s shelter home and transferred the probe to the CBI on November 28.

Supreme Court refers the Sabarimala review case to a 7-judge bench.