[Sabarimala] Not necessary to refer to facts to decide pure question of law: SC explains why question of law can be referred to larger Bench
Supreme Court

[Sabarimala] Not necessary to refer to facts to decide pure question of law: SC explains why question of law can be referred to larger Bench

The Supreme Court has explained why it took upon the task of defining the scope and ambit of the right to religion and whether a PIL can lay down questions on a religious custom.

A nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court today gave a detailed explanation for its February 10 order by which it held that questions of law can indeed be referred to a larger bench. (Kantara Rajeevaru v. Indian Young Lawyers Association and ors - Supreme Court Order - May 11)

This order was passed in the review petitions filed against the Apex Court's November 2019 decision to allow entry of women into the Sabarimala Temple.

Want to read the full story?

We’re glad you’re enjoying this story. Subscribe to any of our plans to continue reading the story.

Already have an account? Sign In

Related Stories

No stories found.
Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news
www.barandbench.com