SC likely to take up Sabarimala review petitions after Jan 30

Satya Prakash
Tribune News Service
New Delhi, January 22

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to grant urgent hearing to close to 50 petitions seeking review of its verdict allowing women of all age groups into the hill-top shrine of Lord Ayyappa at Sabarimala in Kerala as Justice Indu Malhotra was on medical leave.

Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi said Justice Malhotra was on medical leave till January 30 and it would be possible to take up the review petitions only after she resumed work.

The CJI was responding to advocate Mathew J Nedumpara’s plea on Tuesday afternoon for urgent hearing of the review petitions which were originally listed for hearing on Tuesday but deleted from the list because of Justice Malhotra’s unavailability.

The Bench had earlier indicated it on January 15 when Nedumpara had mentioned the issue and demanded live streaming of the hearing of Sabarimala review petitions. 

The Supreme Court in November last said it would take up on January 22 in open court close to 50 petitions seeking review of its Sabarimala verdict allowing women of all age groups into the shrine.

But a five-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had said that there would be no stay on its September 28 verdict allowing entry of women of all age groups to the temple.

“Applications for hearing of review petitions in open court are allowed,” the Bench had said posting all the review petitions along with all pending applications for hearing on January 22 before “the appropriate Bench”.

“We make it clear that there is no stay of judgment dated September 28…,” said the Bench, which also included Justice Rohinton Nariman, Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Indu Malhotra.

The court had already made it clear that fresh writ petitions would be taken up after review petitions were decided.

As per general norms, hearing on review petitions is done through a procedure called “hearing by circulation” in chamber of the CJI where parties are not represented by their advocates.

But in exceptional cases, review petitions are heard in open court and parties can be represented by their advocates. 

Earlier, the Supreme Court had repeatedly refused to give urgent hearing to petitions seeking review of its ruling lifting age-old restrictions on procreating women from entering the temple.

A Constitution Bench headed by then CJI Dipak Misra had on September 28 lifted the restriction on the entry of women into the temple, evoking a series of protests by women devotees of Lord Ayyappa.

The review petitioners contended that “sheer uniqueness” of the Sabarimala temple made it a fit case for grant of religious denomination status.

By 4:1, a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by then Chief Justice Dipak Misra had declared the practice unconstitutional. Justice Indu Malhotra, the lone woman on the Bench, had dissented. The majority declared unconstitutional Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965, which barred entry of women between 10 and 50 years of age into the temple.

The review petitioners, including Nair Service Society and People for Dharma, said the top court wrongly concluded that exclusion of women between the age of 10 and 50 was discriminatory and erred in allowing women of all age groups into the temple.