On Monday, the Supreme Court faced stiff opposition from a group of top lawyers. The lawyers, during the hearing of the Sabarimala case, termed the reference given by a five-judge bench on questions related to discrimination against women at religious places as flawed.
Shocking revelation comes out in search operation from suspended DSP Davinder's house
Senior advocate FS Nariman said that in the course of exercising reconsideration jurisdiction, no reference can be made to the issues being heard by a larger bench as it has a very limited scope. During the two-hour hearing, Nariman said that a five-judge bench headed by the then Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi was wrong to refer to the wider scope when deciding on a review petition against the 2018 verdict in the Sabarimala case. The court, through this order of 2018, directed women of all ages to enter Kerala's Sabarimala temple. However, a 9-judge bench headed by Chief Justice SA Bobde said it would proceed with the order referred to by a five-judge bench on November 14 last year.
Due to this, eight cases filed against former Governor Qureshi
The bench also mentioned that by a majority of 3: 2, the bench had said that the larger bench will have to find a judicial policy to do solid and complete justice in matters related to religious freedom. These topics related to religious freedom include the entry of Muslim women into mosques and dargahs and the prohibition of entry of Parsi women to non-Persian men in the fire temple. Nariman said, 'However, this is not the tradition that the Supreme Court has adopted since the days of the Privy Council and there are many decisions in this regard. A 9-judge bench also took note of the strong opposition of senior advocates including Nariman, Kapil Sibal, Rajiv Dhawan, Rakesh Dwivedi, and Shyam Dewan.
