[Sabarimala Reference] Nine Judge Bench Hearing -Live-Updates From Supreme Court
CJI to Parasaran, “By making a reference order, the court has not prejudicially affected anyone’s rights.”
Parasaran : This is the highest court of the land and can exercise unlimited jurisdiction and discretion.
Singhvi states that the situation is identical since in Sabarimala the reference is made pending review. In Navtej Singh Johar case, reference was made pending curative in Naz Foundation case.
Singhvi mentions the name of Jaising while citing the Navtej Singh Johar case. Jaising states that Singhvi must refer to the judgement and the appearances properly as she was not a part of the case, Mr. Anand Grover however was.
Jaising states that this is a court of record and Singhvi is being “a male chauvinist” by misleading the court with such references.
Singhvi refers to the Navtej Johar case, which was decided when the curative against the 2013 judgment on Sec 377 was pending.
Jaising tells the Court that Singhvi is misleading the Court by putting curative and review on the same footing.
Singhvi elaborates to the Court that the Petitioners have used the liberal jurisdiction arrogated to a PIL to claim benefits. However, now that the review is present, they are claiming no jurisdiction.
Singhvi states that the Bench is dealing with a PIL jurisdiction and the arguments raised in the morning will not apply.
Singhvi : “A new and strange thing has been happening. A PIL is filed without a statute saying that you stop an allegedly bad practice. The Petitioner in 90% of the cases becomes the Respondent !”
Singhvi : In a civil court, you can apply an ouster. But, in a constitutional court, that too a 9 judge bench, you can put an ouster ? That is absurd.