<p>The Supreme Court has decided to consider on February 6 only the objections raised by jurist Fali S Nariman and others on the reference made to a larger bench in the Sabarimala review petitions.</p>.<p>A notice issued on Wednesday stated that the nine-judge bench presided over by Chief Justice S A Bobde, considers the issue of "whether this court can refer questions of law to a larger bench in a review petition". </p>.<p>On Monday, the court said it would determine the larger issue of faith versus rights by framing questions that have arisen following its judgement on November 14, 2019, on review petitions against its 2018 ruling that allowed women of all age groups to enter Kerala's Sabarimala temple.</p>.<p>Senior advocates FS Nariman and Shyam Divan, however, contended that there cannot be a reference order to a larger bench in petitions seeking review of a judgement.</p>.<p>They said that the Sabarimala judgement was passed on September 28, 2018 by a five-judge bench. When review petitions were filed against it, the five-judge bench, instead of deciding it, made a reference to a larger bench.</p>.<p>Their contention was opposed by the other counsel, namely senior advocates K Parasaran and A M Singhvi and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, among others. They said in PILs, the court had exercised such jurisdiction to make a reference.</p>.<p>To this, the bench said it would also decide whether a reference order can be made under the review jurisdiction.</p>.<p>On November 14, 2019, a five-judge bench headed by then Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi said by a majority view of 3:2, it was essential to adhere to “judicial discipline and propriety”. Since more than one petition was pending on the same, similar or overlapping issues, all cases must proceed together, they said.</p>.<p>Similar questions related to Muslim women's right to enter 'dargah' and mosque, and permission for Parsi women married to a non-Parsi to visit the holy fireplace of an 'Agyari' and the practice of female genital mutilation among Dawoodi Bohra community would require authoritative determinations, along with the right of women of all ages to enter Lord Ayappa's temple at Sabarimala, it had said.</p>.<p>The five-judge bench had on September 28, 2018, opened the doors of famous Lord Ayappa's temple for all women, particularly those between 10-50 years of age, who were till then prohibited on the ground that menstruating women were not pure.<br /> </p>
<p>The Supreme Court has decided to consider on February 6 only the objections raised by jurist Fali S Nariman and others on the reference made to a larger bench in the Sabarimala review petitions.</p>.<p>A notice issued on Wednesday stated that the nine-judge bench presided over by Chief Justice S A Bobde, considers the issue of "whether this court can refer questions of law to a larger bench in a review petition". </p>.<p>On Monday, the court said it would determine the larger issue of faith versus rights by framing questions that have arisen following its judgement on November 14, 2019, on review petitions against its 2018 ruling that allowed women of all age groups to enter Kerala's Sabarimala temple.</p>.<p>Senior advocates FS Nariman and Shyam Divan, however, contended that there cannot be a reference order to a larger bench in petitions seeking review of a judgement.</p>.<p>They said that the Sabarimala judgement was passed on September 28, 2018 by a five-judge bench. When review petitions were filed against it, the five-judge bench, instead of deciding it, made a reference to a larger bench.</p>.<p>Their contention was opposed by the other counsel, namely senior advocates K Parasaran and A M Singhvi and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, among others. They said in PILs, the court had exercised such jurisdiction to make a reference.</p>.<p>To this, the bench said it would also decide whether a reference order can be made under the review jurisdiction.</p>.<p>On November 14, 2019, a five-judge bench headed by then Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi said by a majority view of 3:2, it was essential to adhere to “judicial discipline and propriety”. Since more than one petition was pending on the same, similar or overlapping issues, all cases must proceed together, they said.</p>.<p>Similar questions related to Muslim women's right to enter 'dargah' and mosque, and permission for Parsi women married to a non-Parsi to visit the holy fireplace of an 'Agyari' and the practice of female genital mutilation among Dawoodi Bohra community would require authoritative determinations, along with the right of women of all ages to enter Lord Ayappa's temple at Sabarimala, it had said.</p>.<p>The five-judge bench had on September 28, 2018, opened the doors of famous Lord Ayappa's temple for all women, particularly those between 10-50 years of age, who were till then prohibited on the ground that menstruating women were not pure.<br /> </p>
