Apex court again declines to stay Sabarimala verdict
New Delhi: The Supreme Court Wednesday once again refused to stay its verdict which allowed entry of women of all age groups into Kerala's Sabarimala temple.
The apex court had on Tuesday declined a similar plea while agreeing to hear in open court a batch of petitions seeking review of its September 28 verdict by which it had lifted the ban on entry of women of menstruating age group into the Sabarimala temple. The top court has fixed January 22 to hear all the review petitions.
A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi asked a lawyer, who on Wednesday sought stay on the court's Sabarimala verdict, to wait till January 22 when the Constitution bench will hear review petitions. The matter was mentioned by lawyer Mathews J Nedumpara, who has filed the review on behalf of the National Ayyappa Devotees (Women's) Association.
On September 28, a five-judge Constitution bench, headed by the then Chief Justice Dipak Misra, in 4:1 verdict had paved the way for entry of women of all ages into the Sabarimala temple, saying the ban amounted to gender discrimination.
The review petitions against the verdict were taken up on Tuesday 'in-chamber' by a bench comprising the CJI and Justices R F Nariman, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra.
"All the review petitions along with all pending applications will be heard in Open Court on 22nd January, 2019 before the appropriate Bench. We make it clear that there is no stay of the judgment and order of this court dated 28th September, 2018 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No.373 of 2006 (Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. vs. The State of Kerala & Ors)," the order said.
In the in-chamber proceedings, the judges examine the review petitions by circulation and lawyers were not present.
There are around 48 petitions seeking review of the judgement and they were
filed following the recent violent protests in favour and against the verdict.
The apex court had also made it clear that fresh pleas related to the matter will be heard only after it decides the earlier petitions seeking review of the judgment.
