A five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi is likely to start hearing the Sabarimala review petitions from February 6 onwards.
The indication came on Thursday when Justice Indu Malhotra indicated in open court, while hearing the Sree Padmanabha Swamy temple case, that the Sabarimala petitions may be listed for Wednesday next week.
She said this while discussing the future dates for the Padmanabha Swamy temple case which the judge is hearing as part of a Bench led by Justice U.U. Lalit.
Justice Malhotra is part of the Constitution Bench hearing the Sabarimala petitions against the September 28 judgment of the Supreme Court revoking the bar on women of menstrual age from entering the Sabarimala temple to worship.
The Sabarimala case was earlier scheduled for January 22, but had to be cancelled as Justice Malhotra was on medical leave .
Recently, while responding to an oral mention by advocate Mathew Nedumpara to fix a date of hearing, Chief Justice Gogoi had conveyed the court's decision to wait for Justice Malhotra's return after her leave.
Justice Malhotra had delivered the lone dissent in the majority judgment of the five-judge 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".
Justice Malhotra, in her dissent, had declared the prohibition on women aged between 10 and 50 years to be an “essential practice”. The Judge had held that imposing the court’s morality on a religion would negate the freedom to practise religion according to one’s faith and beliefs. Justice Malhotra's judgment has since then become a rallying point for the review petitioners.
Review petitions were filed by a range of persons, from the Sabarimala temple's chief priest to individuals and Ayyappa organisations, including women devotees' bodies. They have urged the court that 'reform' does not mean rendering a religious practice out of existence on the basis of a PIL filed by "third parties" who do not believe in the Sabarimala deity.
Justice Malhotra’s rationale that courts should not allow "interlopers" to file PILs challenging religious practices is a common thread in the review petitions. The review petitioners have argued that the right to move the Supreme Court for violation of fundamental rights must be reserved for those whose personal rights to worship have been violated. Entertaining of PILs on religious practices by third parties may invite "perils even graver for religious minorities”.
