New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday held that its five-judge bench can refer questions of law to a larger bench while exercising its limited power under review jurisdiction in the Sabarimala case.
A bench headed by Chief Justice S A Bobde framed seven questions to be heard by a nine-judge Constitutional bench on issues relating to freedom of religion under the Constitution and faith.
The seven questions framed by the bench are:
1. What is the scope and ambit of religious freedom?
2. What is the interplay between religious freedom and freedom of beliefs of religious denominations?
3. Whether rights of religious denominations are subject to fundamental rights?
4. What is morality in the practice of religion?
5. What is the scope of judicial review in matters of religious freedom?
6. What is the meaning of "a section of Hindus" under Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution?
7. Whether a person not belonging to a religious group can file a PIL challenging the practices of that group?
The bench said it's nine-judge bench will deal with the right to freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution and its interplay with the right of various religious denominations.
It will also deal with the extent of judicial review with regard to religious practices and the meaning of "sections of Hindus" occurring in article 25 (2)(b) of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court will also deal with the power of a person, who does not belong to a particular religion or sect of a religion, to question the religious beliefs of that religion by filling a PIL.
Many senior lawyers including Fali S Nariman, Kapil Sibal, Shyam Divan, Rajeev Dhavan and Rakesh Dwivedi argued on February 3 that while exercising review jurisdiction, the Supreme Court does not have the power to refer a question of law to a larger bench.
A five-judge bench, by a majority of 3:2 on November 14 last year, had referred to a larger bench the issue of discrimination against women in various religions.
A majority verdict by the then Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and justices A M Khanwilkar and Indu Malhotra decided to keep the pleas seeking a review of its decision regarding entry of women into the shrine pending and said restrictions on women at religious places were not limited to Sabarimala alone and were prevalent in other religions also.
By a 4:1 majority verdict, the apex court had lifted the ban that prevented women and girls between the age of 10 and 50 years from entering the famous Ayyappa shrine in Sabarimala and held that the centuries-old Hindu religious practice was illegal and unconstitutional.
(With inputs from PTI)
