JOIN USThere can't be 'fetters on our discretion' to frame questions of law: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Monday said there can't be "fetters on its discretion" to frame questions of law for determination by a larger bench in review petitions.
A nine-judge bench presided over by Chief Justice S A Bobde gave detailed reasons for the decision to examine the scope of rights vis-a-vis faiths following Sabarimala judgement.
The court pointed out the determination of the scope of Articles 25 (freedom to practice religion) and 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs) of the Constitution is of paramount importance.
The bench said that the top court can refer questions of law to a larger bench in a review petition, rejecting the preliminary objections made by senior advocate F S Nariman and others that the scope of review jurisdiction was very limited.
"The reference of questions of law pertaining to the scope of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India are of utmost importance requiring an authoritative pronouncement... Therefore, the reference, in this case, cannot be said to be suffering from any jurisdictional error," the bench said.
The bench also relied upon Article 142 of the Constitution which enabled the top court to make any order "as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it".
"No matter is beyond the jurisdiction of a superior Court of record unless it is expressly shown to be so, under the provisions of the Constitution. In the absence of any express provision in the Constitution, this court being a superior Court of record has jurisdiction in every matter and if there is any doubt, the court has the power to determine its jurisdiction," the bench said.
Acting on a batch of review petitions against 2018 Sabarimala judgement allowing entry of all-age women to Lord Ayappa temple, the five-judge bench had in November 2019 referred the matter to a larger bench, saying similar issue related to rights of other faith women should be determined along with it.
The matter was then referred to the nine-judge bench, which framed legal issues for determination without going into facts of the matter.
During the preliminary hearing, a contention was made that pure questions of law cannot be referred to a larger bench without reference to facts.
"We do not agree. It is not necessary to refer to facts to decide pure questions of law, especially those pertaining to the interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution," the bench said.
An 11-judge bench had earlier framed and answered questions of law in T M A Pai Foundation vs State of Karnataka (2002) on rights of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions.