Nine-judge SC bench to hear pleas on religious discrimination against women on Apr 7

New Delhi: A nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court is scheduled to commence from April 7 the final hearing on petitions relating to discrimination against women at religious places, including Sabarimala Temple, and on the ambit and scope of religious freedom practised by multiple faiths.

According to the apex court's cause list of April 7, the nine-judge Constitution bench will comprise 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.

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 in Kerala 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 issues of entry of Muslim women into mosques and dargahs and of Parsi women, married to non-Parsi men, to the holy fire place of an Agiary, to the larger bench.

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 and the hearing was expected to conclude on April 22.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the Centre had said he supported the pleas for review of the Sabarimala verdict that allowed entry of women of all age groups to the hill-top shrine in Kerala.

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 of the Constitution.

"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 (PIL).

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.