Published: Tue, November 13, 2018
Global News | By Blake Casey

Supreme Court agrees to hear Sabarimala Review petitions in open court

Supreme Court agrees to hear Sabarimala Review petitions in open court

Multiple review and writ petitions were filed by individuals and Ayyappa organisations, including women devotees' bodies, urging the court to re-consider the verdict.

As reported by Bar and Bench recently, a bench of justices U.U. Lalit and Ashok Bhushan chose to hear a review petition in open court, after the review petitioner, Avinash Kumar, made a convincing plea in his petition to reopen the case, decided by the bench of Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel and Justice Lalit on August 25 previous year.

In the in-chamber proceedings, the judges examine the review petitions by circulation and lawyers are not present. As the then CJI Dipak Misra retired on October 2, CJI Gogoi filled the vacancy today.

"All the petitions along with all pending applications will be heard in Open Court on 22nd January, 2019, before the appropriate Bench. I think Kerala is united on this issue and therefore, I am happy that the Supreme Court has chose to review the entire issue", he said.

Tuesday’s First Warning Forecast: Rain today then a big cool down
A transition to a cold rain should occur. "Two-day rain totals should range from 1-2" with most of the rain falling on Monday . Saturday night , the temperature will drop back down to around 24 degrees with a 40% chance of snow showers overnight.

The supreme court on Tuesday made a decision to consider the petitions filed seeking review of the judgement allowing entry of women of all age groups into the Sabarimala temple in an open court.

However, a three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice Gogoi would in the morning be hearing three separate writ petitions, also challenging the Sabarimala judgment.

49 review petitions were filed at the apex court to review its decision. The three will now be heard with the original review petitions. The state of Kerala has also seen widespread protests by both women and men against the SC's ruling in this case.

The court in its historic verdict said that the ban on women in menstruating age group, whose presence at the Sabarimala temple was considered "impure", violated their fundamental rights and constitutional guarantee of equality. There are around 50 petitions seeking review of the judgement. They contend that it was instead based on the "eternally celibate" nature of the particular deity, and therefore the practice is not derogatory to the dignity of women. The question remains whether Justice Khanwilkar, with no strong views of his own on the matter, is likely to be persuaded to change his views during the open hearing on January 22.

Like this: