A nine-judge Supreme Court bench on Tuesday
commenced hearing on petitions related to discrimination against women at
religious places, including Sabarimala temple of Keralam, and on the ambit and
scope of religious freedom practised by multiple faiths.
The Constitution bench comprises Chief Justice Surya
Kant and Justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind
Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya
Bagchi.
Ahead of the hearing, the Centre filed written
submissions and requested the top court to uphold restriction on the entry of
women of menstruating age into Sabarimala temple.
The Union of India said the issue falls squarely
within the domain of religious faith and denominational autonomy, and lies beyond
the scope of judicial review.
In September 2018, a five-judge Constitution bench,
by a 4:1 majority verdict, had lifted the ban that prevented women between the
age of 10 and 50 from entering the Ayyappa shrine at Sabarimala and held that
the centuries-old Hindu religious practice was illegal and unconstitutional.
Later, on November 14, 2019, another five-judge
bench headed by the then CJI Ranjan Gogoi, by a majority of 3:2, referred the
issue of discrimination against women at various places of worship to a larger
bench.
The bench had then framed broad issues on freedom
across religions, saying they cannot be decided without any facts of the
particular case.
Besides the Sabarimala case, the verdict also
referred to the larger bench the issues of Muslim women's entry into mosques
and dargahs, and the entry of Parsi women, married to non-Parsi men, to the
holy fire place of an Agiary.
On May 11, 2020, another bench held that its
five-judge bench had the power to refer the questions of law to a larger bench
for adjudication while exercising its limited power under review jurisdiction
in the Sabarimala temple entry case.
On February 16, the top court had said it would
commence final hearing in the matter on April 7, which was expected to conclude
on April 22.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the
Centre had said that he supported the pleas for review of the Sabarimala
verdict, which allowed entry of women of all age groups to the hill-top shrine
in Keralam.
Earlier, the top court read out seven questions it
had framed on the scope of religious freedom.
Asserting that it was open to addition and deletion
of issues framed, the bench had said it would consider "what is the scope
and ambit of right to freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution
of India?" About the second issue, it said, "What is the
inter-play between the rights of persons under Article 25 of the Constitution
of India and rights of religious denomination under Article 26?" The
third question is whether the rights of a religious denomination under Article
26 are subject to other fundamental rights apart from public order, morality
and health.
"What is the scope and extent of the word
'morality' under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, and whether it is
meant to include Constitutional morality?" read the fourth question.
The bench had said it would also examine the
"scope and extent of judicial review," concerning a religious
practice as referred under Article 25.
"What is the meaning of the expression
"sections of Hindus" occurring in Article 25 (2) (b) of the
Constitution of India?" read the sixth issue.
The top court had said it would examine, as the
seventh question, whether a person not belonging to a religious denomination or
religious group can question a practice of that "religious denomination or
religious group" by filing a public interest litigation.
It had said the larger bench would have to evolve a
judicial policy to do "substantial and complete justice" in matters
of freedom of religion, such as restrictions on the entry of Muslim and Parsi
women into their places of worship.