Case Note & Summary
The judgment arises from a reference made by a three-judge bench in review petitions against the Supreme Court's 2018 judgment in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (Sabarimala case). The 2018 judgment had allowed entry of women aged 10-50 into the Sabarimala temple, holding that the devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a separate religious denomination and that the exclusion of women violated Article 25. Several review petitions were filed, and a three-judge bench (Ranjan Gogoi CJ, A.M. Khanwilkar, and Indu Malhotra JJ) referred certain questions of law to a larger bench, noting the need for an authoritative pronouncement on the scope of Articles 25 and 26, essential religious practices, and related issues. The reference was opposed on grounds that review petitions are not maintainable under Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, and that hypothetical questions cannot be referred. The nine-judge bench, by order dated 10.02.2020, held that questions of law can be referred to a larger bench in a review petition, and re-framed seven issues for consideration. The present order provides reasons for that decision. The Court noted that Article 137 empowers review, and Article 145 allows rule-making, but no law by Parliament restricts the power. The Court emphasized its inherent powers under Article 142 to do complete justice. It refrained from expressing any view on the merits of the review petitions, which remain pending. The Court also dismissed the objection that the reference was premature, holding that the power to refer exists even during pendency of review. The judgment clarifies that procedural rules like Order XLVII do not bar the Court from making a reference to a larger bench in a review petition, especially when seminal questions of constitutional importance arise.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Supreme Court's Power of Review - Reference to Larger Bench - Article 137, Article 145, Article 142 of the Constitution of India - The Court held that questions of law can be referred to a larger bench in a review petition, as the power of this Court is not fettered by Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, and the Court can make any order necessary to do complete justice under Article 142. (Paras 6-10)
B) Constitutional Law - Freedom of Religion - Interplay between Articles 25 and 26 - Essential Religious Practices - The Court framed seven questions for consideration by a larger bench, including the scope of Article 25, interplay with Article 26, meaning of 'morality' under Articles 25 and 26, and the extent of judicial review of religious practices. (Paras 3, 6)
C) Constitutional Law - Public Interest Litigation - Standing - Article 32 - The Court framed the question whether a person not belonging to a religious denomination can question a practice of that denomination by filing a PIL. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether this Court can refer questions of law to a larger bench in a review petition
Final Decision
The Court held that questions of law can be referred to a larger bench in a review petition. The preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the reference was rejected. The Court refrained from expressing any view on the merits of the review petitions, which remain pending. The order dated 10.02.2020 was upheld, and reasons were provided.
Law Points
- Power of Supreme Court to refer questions of law to larger bench in review petition
- Maintainability of review petition under Article 137
- Scope of inherent powers under Article 142
- Applicability of Order XLVII of Supreme Court Rules
- 2013
Case Details
Review Petition (Civil) No. 3358 of 2018 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 373 of 2006 and connected matters
S.A. Bobde, CJI, R.F. Nariman, D.Y. Chandrachud, and other judges (as part of nine-judge bench)
Indian Young Lawyers Association Thru. Its General Secretary Ms. Bhakti Pasrija and Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Review petitions against the judgment in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (Sabarimala case) and reference of questions of law to a larger bench.
Remedy Sought
The review petitioners sought review of the 2018 judgment allowing entry of women aged 10-50 into Sabarimala temple. The respondents (Indian Young Lawyers Association) sought dismissal of the review petitions.
Filing Reason
The review petitions were filed challenging the 2018 judgment on grounds that it erroneously held that devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a separate religious denomination and that the exclusion of women violated Article 25.
Previous Decisions
The Writ Petition (Civil) No. 373 of 2006 was allowed by a 4:1 majority on 28.09.2018, declaring Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules as violative of Article 25(1) and ultra vires Section 3 of the 1965 Act. Review petitions were filed, and a three-judge bench referred questions of law to a larger bench.
Issues
Whether this Court can refer questions of law to a larger bench in a review petition.
Whether the review petitions are maintainable under Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
Submissions/Arguments
Objectors: Review petitions are not maintainable due to limitations in Order XLVII; reference can only be made after review is granted; hypothetical questions cannot be referred; no reasons recorded for conflict of opinion; only appeals can be referred under Article 145(3).
Supporters: No limits on this Court's jurisdiction; inherent powers under Article 142; Order XLVII does not bar reference; review petitions arise from PIL, so rules of procedure do not strictly apply; seminal questions require authoritative pronouncement.
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court, as a superior court of record, has inherent powers under Article 142 to do complete justice, and its power to refer questions of law to a larger bench in a review petition is not fettered by Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. The reference can be made even during the pendency of review petitions, especially when seminal questions of constitutional importance arise.
Judgment Excerpts
By an order dated 10.02.2020, we answered the preliminary point by holding that questions of law can be referred to a larger bench in a review petition.
The power of this Court cannot be fettered by Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules.
We refrain from expressing any view on the merits of the review petitions.
Procedural History
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 373 of 2006 was filed by Indian Young Lawyers Association challenging Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules. On 28.09.2018, a Constitution Bench allowed the petition by 4:1 majority. Several review petitions were filed. A three-judge bench referred questions of law to a larger bench. The nine-judge bench was constituted to answer the reference. On 10.02.2020, the Court held that the reference is maintainable. The present order provides reasons for that decision.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 25, Article 26, Article 32, Article 137, Article 142, Article 145
- Supreme Court Rules, 2013: Order XLVII
- Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965: Section 3
- Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965: Rule 3(b)
