[Sabarimala Reference] Nine Judge Bench Hearing -Live-Updates From Supreme Court

SG refers to another judgement where review was pending, which in turn was referred to a larger Bench.

The simple reason to cite these judgements is that no technical fetters can be put on your Lordship’s jurisdiction.

This is a constitutional issue, even J. Gogoi said that if issues of constitutional matters arise, it should ideally go to the full court ! Or at least the maximum number of judges.

SG refers to Navtej Singh Johar case wherein the matter was sent to a 5 judge bench for settlement of the matter, despite a pending review and curative.

SG : “As custodian of Fundamental Rights, it was the duty of the court to lay down an authoritative pronouncement on these questions of law.”

SG talks about the responsibility carried by the Hon’ble Court in re the numerical strength. “This can never be my decision. It is always the decision of the Court.”

SG : Irrespective of the proceedings, the power to refer questions of law to a larger Bench is unfettered. It could even be a curative petition, but the power remains.

Relying upon Dawoodi Bohra judgement, SG emphasises the interplay between the strength of Benches

SG : It is really unfortunate that few litigants who are not even a part of the case, are raising objections about whether this Bench should hear it or not. Even after all the time that has been spent.

Chief Justice was the author of the order itself, states CJI Bobde.

“That is exactly what I’m saying.

Majority had not referred the entire judgement to a larger Bench, merely certain questions of law.”, SG

CJI asks SG not to spend time on this line of argument.

SG reads out majority opinion in the Sabarimala review to state that the majority had not referred the review to the larger bench, but certain larger questions on religious rights and scope of judicial interference on them.