Login With Google
Sabarimala case: larger Bench to decide role of courts in religion
Why in news?
- A majority judgment delivered by 5-judge Bench led by CJI Ranjan Gogoi on 14 Nov kept final decision on Sabarimala review and writ petitions in abeyance till a 7-judge Bench delivers an “authoritative pronouncement” on the exact role a non-epistolary court can play in deciding whether a particular practice is essential or integral to a religion.
More in news
- No stay on September 28, 2018 judgment: which upheld the right of women aged between 10 and 50 to enter and worship at the temple in Kerala.
- CJI, with Justices A.M. Khanwilkar & Indu Malhotra, framed a series of questions for the larger Bench while delivering majority judgement:
(1) Whether a court can probe if a practice is essential to a religion or should the question be left to the respective religious head;
(2) Should “essential religious practices” be afforded constitutional protection under Article 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs);
(3) What is the “permissible extent” of judicial recognition a court should give to PILs filed by people who do not belong to the religion of which practices are under the scanner.
- Justices Rohinton F. Nariman and D.Y. Chandrachud, however, joined to deliver a stinging dissent.
(1) Both dismissed majority decision of reference to a larger Bench.
(2) Both were part of the Constitution Bench that delivered the original majority judgment in September 2018.
(3) Justice Nariman, said the judgment of a 5-judge Bench was the last word on interpretation of the Constitution.
Sources
The Hindu