2019 (11) TMI 1678 - SC - Indian Laws

Entry of Muslim women in a dargah/mosque - Parsi women married to non-Parsis and their entry into a fire temple - issues relating to female genital mutilation in the Dawoodi Bohra community - HELD THAT - The greatest common measure of agreement among the majority judgments, being the test enunciated by this decision, is the three propositions outlined above, to which all the four majority Judges agree. On whether the exclusion of women from Hindu temples is an essential part of the Hindu religion, three Judges clearly held that it is not, with Nariman, J. assuming that such exclusionary practice is an essential part of the Hindu religion. It is with these prefatory remarks that we now begin to examine the arguments of counsel for the review petitioners. The issue of locus-standi to file a public-interest litigation was reargued by some of the review petitioners. Indu Malhotra, J. in her dissenting judgment, has held that to entertain a public-interest litigation at the behest of persons who are not worshippers at Sabrimala temple would open the floodgates of petitions to be filed questioning the validity of religious beliefs and practices followed by other religious sects - The position under our constitutional scheme is that the Supreme Court of India is the ultimate repository of interpretation of the Constitution. Once a Constitution Bench of five learned Judges interprets the Constitution and lays down the law, the said interpretation is binding not only as a precedent on all courts and tribunals, but also on the coordinate branches of Government, namely, the legislature and the executive. What follows from this is that once a judgment is pronounced by the Constitution Bench and a decree on facts follows, the said decree must be obeyed by all persons bound by it. The State of Kerala is directed to give wide publicity to this judgment through the medium of television, newspapers, etc. The government should take steps to secure the confidence of the community in order to ensure the fulfillment of constitutional values. The State government may have broad-based consultations with representatives of all affected interests so that the modalities devised for implementing the judgment of the Court meet the genuine concerns of all segments of the community. Organised acts of resistance to thwart the implementation of this judgment must be put down firmly. Petition disposed off.

Issues Involved:
1. Entry of Muslim women in a dargah/mosque.
2. Entry of Parsi women married to non-Parsis into a fire temple.
3. Female genital mutilation in the Dawoodi Bohra community.
4. Conflict between the Shirur Mutt case and the Durgah Committee case.
5. Applicability of Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules, 1965 to the Sabarimala temple.
6. Grounds for review petitions and writ petitions concerning the Sabarimala judgment.
7. Parameters of judicial intervention in review petitions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Entry of Muslim Women in a Dargah/Mosque:
The judgment mentions that the entry of Muslim women in a dargah/mosque is sub judice and may be referred to a larger bench. The larger bench may consider the issue and decide whether the matter requires a fresh opportunity for all interested parties.

2. Entry of Parsi Women Married to Non-Parsis into a Fire Temple:
Similar to the issue of Muslim women, the entry of Parsi women married to non-Parsis into a fire temple is also sub judice. It may be referred to a larger bench for consideration and determination of whether it requires a fresh opportunity for all interested parties.

3. Female Genital Mutilation in the Dawoodi Bohra Community:
The judgment indicates that the issue of female genital mutilation in the Dawoodi Bohra community is pending and may be referred to a larger bench. The bench may decide on the necessity of granting a fresh opportunity to all interested parties.

4. Conflict Between Shirur Mutt Case and Durgah Committee Case:
The learned Chief Justice highlighted a potential conflict between the Shirur Mutt case (1954) and the Durgah Committee case (1962). This conflict may be referred to a larger 7-judge bench for resolution.

5. Applicability of Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules, 1965 to the Sabarimala Temple:
The judgment discusses whether the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules, 1965 govern the Sabarimala temple. The larger bench may consider this issue and decide if a fresh opportunity for interested parties is necessary.

6. Grounds for Review Petitions and Writ Petitions Concerning the Sabarimala Judgment:
The judgment focuses on review petitions arising from the 2018 judgment in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala concerning the Sabarimala temple. The Court emphasized that the review petitions must be within the parameters of limited jurisdiction, as outlined in Article 137 of the Constitution and Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. The Court cited principles from previous judgments, such as Sow Chandra Kante v. Sheikh Habib and Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, to define the grounds for review as discovery of new and important evidence, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, and any other sufficient reason.

7. Parameters of Judicial Intervention in Review Petitions:
The Court reiterated the strict parameters for judicial intervention in review petitions. It emphasized that a review is not an appeal in disguise and must be based on a glaring omission, patent mistake, or grave error. The Court dismissed the review petitions and writ petitions, stating that no grounds for review were made out. It highlighted the consensus among the majority judgments on key issues, such as the non-recognition of devotees of Lord Ayyappa as a separate religious denomination, the violation of Article 25(1) by the exclusionary practice at Sabarimala, and the ultra vires nature of Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions and writ petitions, upholding the 2018 judgment concerning the Sabarimala temple. The Court emphasized the importance of compliance with its judgments, the constitutional duty of all authorities to act in aid of the Supreme Court, and the rule of law. It directed the State of Kerala to ensure the implementation of the judgment and to take steps to secure the confidence of the community while reaffirming human dignity and constitutional values.

← Previous Next →