Lay down the law when only fact come in: Fali Nariman to nine judge bench

The have decided on 6 february that it will give its verdict over the question in review petition in various matters including Sabarmila case and the verdict had also referred issues of entry of Muslim women into mosques and dargahs and of Parsi women, married to non-Parsi men, being barred from the holy fire place of an Agiary, to the .

During the hearing on Thursday senior lawyers like F S Nariman, Rajeev Dhavan, Indira Jaising and Shyam Divan argued that the 5-judge bench was wrong in making a reference to a larger bench without deciding the review petitions challenging the 2018 Sabarimala verdict, which had allowed women of all age groups to enter the hill-top shrine.

Whereas the () Sharad A. Bobde, heading the nine-judge Bench, however, defended the November 14, 2019 reference made by a five-judge Sabarimala Review Bench led by then Ranjan Gogoi. “By making this reference order [on November 14], the Bench [led by Justice Gogoi] has not prejudicially affected anybody’s rights. It may be the most innovative idea, but it has not affected any rights,” he said.

The nine judge bench is going to hear day to day hearing from on 2 issues whether the case of reference can be decided by larger bench.

The Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the apex court was right in referring the questions of law to the larger bench and added, “as custodian of fundamental rights, it was the duty of the court to lay down an authoritative pronouncement on these questions of law”.

The senior lawyer FS Nariman was only trying to say that that SC have no power to give case to larger bench.

But SC has said that there is no question of no. Of judges and whether there are 3,7,9 judges it doesn’t affect the decision of case over the crucial matter.

Comments

mood_bad
  • No comments yet.
  • Add a comment