Summary
In the Sabarimala review proceedings, a three-judge majority kept the review and connected writ petitions pending for consideration of broader religious-freedom questions by a larger Bench. The issues included the relationship between religious freedom and equality, constitutional morality, essential religious practices and standing. Two judges dissented, finding no ground for review and favouring dismissal.
Issues
- Whether broader questions concerning religious freedom and judicial review called for consideration by a larger Bench before disposal of the pending petitions.
- Whether the review and connected writ petitions should be disposed of at this stage.
Held
- Majority: overlapping religious-freedom questions in pending matters called for authoritative consideration by a larger Bench of not fewer than seven judges. (¶¶ Gogoi CJI: 3, Gogoi CJI: 4, Gogoi CJI: 5)
- Majority: the questions concerned the interplay of Articles 25 and 26 with other fundamental rights, public order, morality and health, constitutional morality, judicial scrutiny of essential practices, sections of Hindus, denominational protection and standing in public-interest challenges. These were questions for consideration, not final answers. (¶ Gogoi CJI: 5)
- Majority: the apparent conflict between Shirur Mutt and Durgah Committee regarding determination of essential religious practices required larger-Bench consideration. The larger Bench could also consider applicability of the 1965 Rules and the opportunity to interested parties. (¶¶ Gogoi CJI: 7, Gogoi CJI: 8)
- Majority: the review and writ petitions were to remain pending until the larger Bench determined the indicated questions. (¶ Gogoi CJI: 9)
- Dissent of Nariman and Chandrachud JJ: the review disclosed no qualifying error, and the fresh writ petitions directly attacking the earlier judgment were not maintainable. The dissent also emphasized compliance with Supreme Court judgments. These were not the majority’s disposal. (¶¶ Nariman J: 1, Nariman J: 2, Nariman J: 3, Nariman J: 4, Nariman J: 29, Nariman J: 65, Nariman J: 66)
Result
By a 3:2 majority, the review and connected writ petitions were kept pending until determination of the indicated questions by a larger Bench to be constituted by the Chief Justice. The majority neither allowed nor dismissed the reviews and did not expressly stay the 28 September 2018 judgment. Nariman and Chandrachud JJ dissented, favouring dismissal and implementation of that judgment.