Kantaru Rajeevaru Vs Indian Young Lawyers Association (Supreme Court of India)
Summary: The Supreme Court, sitting as a nine-judge bench in proceedings arising from the Sabarimala temple entry litigation, considered a preliminary objection to the reference of constitutional questions to a larger bench while review petitions remained pending. The original writ petition had challenged Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 and restrictions on entry of women aged 10 to 50 years. A five-judge Constitution Bench had allowed the writ petition by a 4:1 majority on 28 September 2018. Subsequently, in review proceedings, the majority considered that wider questions relating to Articles 25 and 26, essential religious practices, constitutional morality and judicial review warranted consideration by a larger bench. The dissenting judges disagreed with that course and would have dismissed the review petitions. The nine-judge bench confined its present ruling to whether such a reference was legally permissible, leaving substantive religious-freedom questions and the merits of the review petitions for later consideration.
The objectors argued that the review petitions were restricted by Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, that a reference could only be made after review was granted, and that abstract questions detached from facts could not be referred. The supporting parties relied upon the Supreme Court’s character as a superior court of record, its inherent powers and Article 142. The Court examined Articles 137 and 145, distinguished writ petitions under Article 32 from civil and criminal proceedings for purposes of the stated restrictions in Order XLVII Rule 1, and interpreted the language and punctuation of that rule. It held that those limitations did not apply to review petitions against judgments in Article 32 writ petitions.
