SC Notifies 9-Judge Bench For Settling Questions Referred In Sabarimala Review; None From The Original Bench Included

The composition of the nine- judge bench which will consider the questions of law referred in the Sabarimala review case is now clear, with the publication of advance causelist for January 13.

The bench will comprise :

1. CJI S A Bobde
2. Justice R Banumathi
3. Justice Ashok Bhushan
4. Justice L Nageswara Rao
5. Justice Mohan M Shantanagoudar
6. Justice S Abdul Nazeer
7. Justice R Subhash Reddy
8. Justice B R Gavai
9. Justice Surya Kant.

It is pertinent to note that none of the judges of the bench which delivered the original judgment on September 28, 2018 - Justices A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud, R F Nariman and Indu Malhotra- are included in the review bench.

It was on November 14 that the Supreme Court bench headed by the then CJI Ranjan Gogoi had passed an order of reference in the Sabarimala review petitions, regarding certain  questions of essential religious practices.

 The causelist states that the bench will consider only the reference and will not hear arguments on the review petitions or writ petitions in Sabarimala case. Those petitions will remain pending until the determination of questions referred, clarifies the causelist.

According to the November 14 order, the following are the issues, that 'could' arise for the consideration of larger bench :

 (i) Regarding the interplay between the freedom of religion under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution and other provisions in Part III, particularly Article 14.

(ii) What is the sweep of expression 'public order, morality and health' occurring in Article 25(1) of the Constitution.

(iii) The expression 'morality' or 'constitutional morality' has not been defined in the Constitution. Is it over arching morality in reference to preamble or limited to religious beliefs or faith. There is need to delineate the contours of that expression, lest it becomes subjective

(iv) The extent to which the court can enquire into the issue of a particular practice is an integral part of the religion or religious practice of a particular religious denomination or should that be left exclusively to be determined by the head of the section of the religious group.

(v) What is the meaning of the expression 'sections of Hindus' appearing in Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution.

(vi) Whether the "essential religious practices" of a religious denomination, or even a section thereof are afforded constitutional protection under Article 26.

(vii) What would be the permissible extent of judicial recognition to PILs in matters calling into question religious practices of a denomination or a section thereof at the instance of persons who do not belong to such religious denomination?