[ By Bobby Anthony ]The Supreme Court has expressed its disappointment about the lack of consensus on framing of legal questions vis-a-vis discrimination faced by women over entry to religious places, including Kerala's Sabarimala Temple.Chief Justice of India SA Bobde's observations came after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that as per court directions at an earlier hearing, a...
The Supreme Court has expressed its disappointment about the lack of consensus on framing of legal questions vis-a-vis discrimination faced by women over entry to religious places, including Kerala's Sabarimala Temple.
Chief Justice of India SA Bobde's observations came after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that as per court directions at an earlier hearing, a meeting of lawyers connected with the case could not finalize the common legal questions for further examination by a nine-judge Constitution bench.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta Supreme Court, “We could not finalize the common questions for consideration. The top court may consider framing questions (under these circumstances)”.
The court then asked Mehta to place before it the issues discussed in the lawyers’ meeting.
An SC bench headed by Justice Bobde had stated earlier that a nine-judge bench would wrap up all arguments within 10 days as well as deal with legal questions essential to the case. The court has expressed its unwillingness to grant extension beyond 10 days.
The Chief Justice of India stated that the judges concerned will finalize and crystallize issues after which they will be heard by the nine-judge SC bench.
“There is no other way. We will work on the weekend,” said the Chief Justice of India emphasizing the importance of beginning the hearing on the Sabarimala order review plea.
“We want to decide it (Sabarimala) for the purpose of laying down the correct law. It was given priority, but something happened. We have enough problems of our own. We decide the best course,” the Chief Justice of India said.
The SC also proposed a conference of all nine judges on the bench.
One of the senior counsels said that a majority of lawyers would argue on certain propositions and that suggestions could not intervene in matters of religion.
The lawyers cited the case of a Parsi woman who was not allowed to attend her father's funeral since she had married a Hindu and as per Parsi religion she cannot enter the Tower of Silence. There was also the issue of genital mutilation of a seven-year-old girl from the Dawoodi Bohra community.
It may be recalled that in November 2019, a five-judge bench headed by the then Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi framed seven questions and referred the same to a seven-judge bench, instead of instead of deciding the review plea of the Sabarimala judgment allowing entry for women of all ages into the temple.
The questions included whether “essential religious practices” would come under the ambit of constitutional protection under Article 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs) of the Constitution.
Chief Justice of India S A Bobde had explained that the SC would examine only the propositions of law raised about religious practices believed to be essential to various religions, and would not go into individual facts of the petitions.