New Delhi [India], February 16 : The Supreme Court of India is set to commence hearings in the long-pending Sabarimala temple entry matter, alongside a batch of connected cases that raise broader constitutional questions on religious freedom and its interplay with equality and constitutional morality.
The proceedings scheduled before a nine-judge Constitution Bench are expected to revisit key issues surrounding essential religious practices, equality, and constitutional morality.
Fixing a schedule, the apex Court directed that hearings will begin at 10:30 AM on April 7. Reviews of petitioners and supporting parties will be heard from April 7 to April 9, followed by original writ petitioners from April 14 to 16. Rejoinders, if any, will be heard on April 22. The court emphasised strict adherence to timelines.
"The nodal counsels in consultation with arguing counsel of the parties shall prepare the internal arrangement so that oral submissions from both sides can be heard within the stipulated timeline", the apex Court noted.
The Union of India is among those supporting the review petitions, effectively challenging the 2018 ruling, while the original writ petitioners are seeking to uphold it.
The case dates back to 2018, when a Constitution Bench had permitted entry of women of all ages into the Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple, striking down the centuries-old tradition barring women between the ages of 10 and 50 years old.
In February 10, 2020, a nine-judge Bench upheld the decisions of the Sabarimala Review Bench to refer broader constitutional questions to a larger forum.
Earlier in the day, Kerala Minister of Law P Rajeev said the Sabarimala matter is currently limited to the constitution of a new Bench. Speaking to reporters, Rajeev said, "Earlier, the direction on the review petition was to constitute a constitution bench to review the earlier verdict. This is only an opportunity to constitute a new constitutional bench to review the existing verdict. After that, we can discuss what is to be done on the basis of the directions of the Supreme Court."
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor