The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear in open court review petitions against its majority judgment which lifted a ban on women aged between 10 and 50 years from undertaking the pilgrimage to the Sabarimala temple in Kerala.
The review petitions will be heard by an “appropriate Bench” in open court on January 22, next year.
Majority ruling holds
The Review Bench of five judges, led by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, however, refused to stay the majority judgment by a Constitution Bench on September 28. The majority judgment had declared the exclusion, solely based on the menstrual status of women, to be a smear on individual dignity. It said the bar amounted to “treating women as the children of a lesser God”.
The refusal to stay the judgment would mean that worshippers, both men and women of all ages, can still undertake the pilgrimage when the temple re-opens on November 16 evening for Mandala Pooja.
The pilgrimage season would end on January 20 after the Makaravilakku festival.
Impact on season
“The order of the court to examine its judgment is a positive step. But there are apprehensions that the review petitions would become infructuous once women aged between 10 and 50 enter the temple this pilgrimage season,” Supreme Court advocate Usha Nandini, one of the 49 review petitioners, reacted.
Advocate G. Prakash, who represents the Kerala government in the issue, said the Bench has only taken a prima facie decision to hear the review petitions in open court. “It has not issued notice. On January 22, the same Review Bench will hear the petitioners and decide whether their pleas should be admitted or not,” he said.
“Besides, the refusal to stay the September 28 judgment is a message that if there is any violence against women pilgrims during the coming season, it would go against the petitioners on January 22,” Mr. Prakash said.
The September judgment had triggered widespread protests in Kerala. The State Police has arrested thousands of protestors even as Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan staunchly stood by the judgment.
Several appeals
The apex court has seen a flood of review petitions. Oral pleas were made for an early hearing. The court has consistently refused to stay the September 28 judgment. On Tuesday morning, a three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice Gogoi deferred three fresh writ petitions against the September 28 judgment, in order to wait for the decision of the Review Bench, which was scheduled to examine the 49 review petitions at 3 p.m.
Now, these three writ petitions would be tagged along with the review pleas and heard along with them on January 22.
The decision to re-examine the majority view comes despite the fact that three of the judges on the Review Bench — Justices Rohinton Nariman, D.Y. Chandrachud and A.M. Khanwilkar — were part of the original majority judgment. Justice Chandrachud, in his separate opinion, had compared the prohibition against women to the abolished practice of untouchability.
Only Justice Indu Malhotra, the fifth judge on the Review Bench, had dissented on September 28, declaring the ban to be an “essential practice”. She held that imposing the court’s morality on a religion would negating the freedom to practise religion according to one’s faith and beliefs. Justice Malhotra's judgment has become a rallying point for petitioners.
