Sabarimala: Women’s Rights group, slew of others approach Supreme Court for review

At least four petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court seeking a review of the Constitution Bench’s decision in the Sabarimala case, delivered on September 28..Review petitions have been filed by Nair Service Society (Respondent No. 6 in the original matter), Shylaja Vijayan, President of the National Ayyappa Devotees Association, People for Dharma, and Chetana Conscience of Women, a Delhi-based NGO working for empowering women and society in general..The petition filed by Nair Service Society states that a large number of women devotees have joined in the protest against the verdict..“In the present case, the subsequent events that transpired after the judgment of which judicial notice may be taken, clearly demonstrate that overwhelmingly large section of women worshippers are supporting the custom of prohibiting entry of females between the age of 10 and 50 years at Sabarimala temple.”.The fact that the Bench went into questions of fact while arriving at its verdict showed that it exceeded its brief, when it was supposed to address the question of law that formed part of the reference..“The Constitution Bench, both by operation of Article 145(3) and the order of reference, will have to decide only the substantial questions of law…the judgment, therefore, suffers from an error of law on the face of the record in going into questions of fact…”.It has further averred that the Court wrongly held the practice of not allowing women between the ages of 10 and 50 was exclusionary. Moreover, the locus standi of the petitioners has been questioned..The Society also points out that its submissions find no mention in the judgment..“The submissions made on behalf of Nair Service Society have not been set out in the judgment. Not to refer to the said submissions supporting the custom is an error apparent in the judgment.”.The review petition filed by Shylaja Vijayan notes that the Supreme Court’s verdict in the Sabarimala case has “sent shock waves among millions of Ayyappa devotees”. It states,.“The judgment under review is an interference with the faith and belief of millions of devotees of Lord Ayyappa, which the Court is not empowered to do and certainly not without notice to them and without hearing them. The judgment dated 28th September, 2018 is, therefore, one rendered void ab initio…”.Filed through Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara, the review petition states that the judgment is a “gross abuse of a procedure named Public Interest Litigation”. It goes on to criticize the manner in which the Court has exercised its jurisdiction, making reference to the NJAC judgment, the Jallikattu verdict, and the judgment by which the Court diluted the provisions of the SC/ST Atrocities Act..“The question is, if Courts were to decide matters concerning legislative, executive and fiscal policies, so too belief and faith of the people, and that too behind their back, without they being afforded an opportunity of hearing, then how such violation of fundamental rights by the judiciary can be remedied?”.As regards the case at hand, the petition claims that the Sabarimala verdict is liable to be reviewed for want of jurisdiction. It points out that the petitioners in the original matter were not devotees of Lord Ayyappa, and hence had no cause of action to approach the Court..“The writ Petitioner Indian Young Lawyers’ Association, an inanimate entity, cannot plead any fundamental right; only a human being, an animate entity, can claim a fundamental right.”.It is contended that the devotees themselves had no opportunity to state their case before the Bench. Therefore, the decision is in violation of the first principle of natural justice, namely audi alteram partem (the right to be heard)..“If this Hon’ble Court was told that the women devotees themselves are in support of the custom prevalent founded on the belief that Lord Ayyappa is a Naishtika Brahmachari and desires not to be visited by fertile women, it could have immediately dismissed the so-called PIL.”.The petition further states that the Court should not confine itself to the grounds under which a judgment can be reviewed, because,.“…in the instant case the petitioners, so too the millions of devotees whose fundamental right of belief and faith are infringed have had no opportunity in the adjudication of the above case. For them the review is the first opportunity to plead, to assert their rights and seek enforcement thereof.”.The review petition filed by NGO Chetana Conscience of Women states that the Supreme Court should not have entertained the petitions seeking entry of women into Sabarimala, as it would facilitate intervention in religious practices of different faiths..Review of the Sabarimala verdict has been sought on the grounds that the majority opinion of the Supreme Court:. – Erred in not considering the evidence placed on record which demonstrates that the practice of the Temple is a direct consequence of the celibate form of the Deity and the rules of Naishthika Brahmacharya which apply to the Deity. – Erred in concluding that in all circumstances, the right of an individual must prevail over the rights of other individuals in a public place of worship. – Erred in concluding that the devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a religious denomination within the meaning of Article 26. – Erred in concluding that the practice of the Temple amounts to untouchability under Article 17.“A clear perusal of the opinions rendered as part of the majority view shows that, apart from patent legal errors, the factually erroneous assumption that the practice of the Temple is based on notions of menstrual impurity has materially contributed to the majority view. This necessitates a review of the Judgment.”.The petition filed through Advocate Muthu Kumar, then goes into the aspects of the case as discussed by each judge on the Bench..Critiquing the judgment delivered by then Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice AM Khanwilkar, the petition states,.“From the Shirur Mutt decision to the Shayara Bano judgement, this Hon’ble Court has undertaken a detailed and rigorous analysis of the applicable scripture or text in examining the essentiality of a religious practice to either a faith or a religious institution. Unfortunately, no such examination has been undertaken in the Opinion of Ld. Judges….…to deny the status of a religious denomination to the Sabarimala Temple and the devotees of Lord Ayyappa merely because they do not conform to Abrahamic notions of religious denominations, is to defeat the very object of the absence of a definition and to abrahamize the core of the Hindu faith, which is unconstitutional.”.As regards Justice DY Chandrachud’s judgment, the review states,.“Critically, to treat individual liberty as the shining star of all fundamental rights even in the context of public places of worship which have a right to preserve their traditions and practices is to completely render rights under Article 25(1) subservient to the whim of an individual…To view religious practices and traditions which enjoy the protection of Article 25(1) entirely through the prism of the individual would lead to excessive statist interference with religious beliefs which goes against the grain of the Constitution…”.Read the petition filed by Nair Service Society:.Read the petition filed by Shylaja Vijayan:.Read the petition filed by Conscience of Women: