2019 Supreme(SC) 1260

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.F. NARIMAN, CJI., D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, RANJAN GOGOI, A.M. KHANWILKAR, INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.
Kantaru Rajeevaru – Petitioners
Versus
Indian Young Lawyers Association Thr.Its General Secretary and Ors – Respondents
W.P.(C) NO. 1285, 1323, 1305, 1339 of 2018, MA 3113 of 2018 IN W.P.(C) NO. 373 of 2006, R.P.(C) NO. 3358, 3381, 3457, 3473, 3480, 3359, 3469, 3449, 3470, 3380, 3379, 3444, 3462, 3377 of 2018, 345 of 2019 IN W.P.(C) NO. 373 of 2006, DIARY NOS. 37946, 38135, 38136, 38764, 38769, 38907, 39023, 39135, 39248, 39258, 39317, 39642, 40056, 40191, 40405, 40570, 40681, 40713, 40840, 40885, 40887, 40888, 40898, 40910, 40924, 40929, 41005, 41091, 41264, 41395, 41586, 41896, 42085, 42264, 42337, 44021, 44991, 46720, 47720 of 2018, 2252, 2998 of 2019 IN W.P.(C) NO.373 of 2006
Decided On : 14-11-2019

IMPORTANT POINTS
Review jurisdiction is a limited jurisdiction which must be exercised on well settled parameters.
Challenging a (Constitution Bench) judgment of Supreme Court by way of writ petition is not permissible.
Review petition rejected there being no error apparent on record.
All civil authorities (giving it a wide interpretation), judicial and non-judicial are mandated to act in aid the Supreme Court.
Law laid down by Supreme Court is law of the land under Article 141 and is binding on all courts and authorities.
Incumbent upon the Ministers of central and State Governments and all MPs and MLAs are obliged to faithfully aid in carrying out decrees and orders passed by the Supreme Court of India when such decrees and orders command a particular form of obedience.
Bona fide criticism of judgments of Supreme Court is permissible. However, thwarting, or encouraging persons to thwart the directions or orders of the Supreme Court cannot be countenanced.

Headnote:

Per Ranjan Gogoi, CJI

(a) Constitution of India - Article 145 - Matters involving seminal issues including interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution touching upon the right to profess, practise and propagate one’s own religion - Hearing by larger bench of commensurate number of Judges would be appropriate - It would ensure an authoritative pronouncement and also reflect the plurality of views of the Judges converging into one opinion and may also ensure consistency in approach for the posterity. (Para 4)

(b) Administration of justice - Judicial propriety - In absence of any epistolary jurisdiction issues pertaining to religion including religious practices are decided under Section 9, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 or Article 226/32, Constitution of India - While doing so the courts should tread cautiously. (Para 6)

(c) Constitution of India - Article 145 - Conflicting views reflected in (1954) SCR 1005 and (1962) 1 SCR 383 as to what are essential religious practices of a particular religious denomination - Matter should be referred to larger Bench - The larger bench may also consider it appropriate to decide all issues, including the question as to whether the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 govern the temple in question at all. Whether the aforesaid consideration will require grant of a fresh opportunity to all interested parties may also have to be considered. (Para 7, 8)

Per R.F.Nariman, J.

(d) Constitution of India - Article 137 r/w Order XLVII, Supreme Court Rules, 2013 - Review jurisdiction - A limited jurisdiction - And on well settled parameters. (Para 4)

(e) Constitution of India - Article 137 r/w Order XLVII, Supreme Court Rules, 2013 - Review of Indian Young Lawyers Association - Grounds - Dipak Misra, C.J., and Khanwilkar, J., neither opined at all on Article 15 of the Constitution of India nor effectively dealt with arguments based on Article 17 of the Constitution - Nariman, J., not effectively dealing with Article 17 - Chandrachud, J. alone expounded on Article 17, but his exposition amounts to an error apparent on the face of the record - Findings - Interpretation of Article 15 and Article 17 having not been teated as central issue, the three Judges did not find it necessary to opine on Article 15(2) and Article 17 in view of their findings on various other points - Nariman, J. alone referred to Article 15(1) of the Constitution when it came to striking down Rule 3(b) of Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 - Observations of Chandrachud, J. on Article 17 of the Constitution cannot be said to be a material error manifest on the face of the record as to undermine soundness of the three conclusions reached by all the majority judgments - Further, since the view of Chandrachud, J. on Article 17 of the Constitution is a possible view, it cannot be a subject matter of review - Review petition liable to be rejected. (Para 13, 14)

(f) Constitution of India - Article 137 r/w Order XLVII, Supreme Court Rules, 2013 - Review of Indian Young Lawyers Association - On the ground that Malhotra, J. based her judgment on dissenting judgment of Chinnappa Reddy, J. in S.P. Mittal treating it as concurring judgment - Factually incorrect - Chinnappa Reddy, J. himself recognizing that his judgment was dissentient - View of Malhotra, J. cannot be held as a possible view - It cannot be said that there is error, let alone material error, manifest on the face of the record of the majority view - Review petition rejected. (Para 17)

(g) Constitution of India - Article 137 - Rearguing the same arguments that were made before the original judgment - Not within parameters for review. (Para 18, 22)

Constitutional law - Constitutional morality - Has now reached the level of stare decisis - Constitutional law and constitutional interpretation stand on a different footing from interpretation of statutes - Utilizing the concept of constitutional morality - Cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. (Para 19)

(h) Constitution of India - Article 25 - Impugned judgment challenged on the ground that belief and faith are not judicially reviewable by courts - Majority judgments rightly held that the delicate balance between the exercise of religious rights by different groups within the same religious faith that is found in Article 25 has to be determined on a case by case basis - Apprehension of the use of the judgment undermine the religious rights of others, including religious minorities - Wholly without basis - Argument rejected. (Para 20)

(i) Constitution of India - Article 26 - Arguments based on Hindi text of Article 26 using the expression “sampradaya” as opposed to the English expression “denomination” - New argument made for the first time in review - Large number of constitution Bench judgments deciding what constitutes a religious denomination - These being binding, following them cannot be said to be an error. (Para 21)

(j) Constitution of India - Article 137 - Original judgment challenged on the ground that as persons of all faiths visit Sabarimala it cannot be held to be a Hindu temple - Sabarimala temple being dedicated to a Hindu idol – Lord Ayyappa, merely visit by persons of all faiths will not change its character - Further argument on gender discrimination that such discrimination in other places of worship have not been interfered - Besides being vague such arguments cannot be made in review. (Para 23, 24)

(k) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 11 - Res judicata - PIL - Res judicata as a principle does apply to public interest litigation - However, when it comes to important issues like interpretation of the Constitution, an erroneous interpretation of the Constitution by a High Court cannot operate as res judicata as against a judgment of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court - Res judicata being a rule of procedure cannot be exalted over Article 145(3) of the Constitution of India - Instantly, the Supreme Court interpreting Article 25(1) to mean that all persons are equally entitled to practice the Hindu religion, which would include women between the ages of 10 and 50 - A previous decision by a High Court, erroneously interpreting Article 25 in an earlier PIL, cannot operate as res judicata in respect of a judgment of Constitution Bench of Supreme Court declaring the law of the land on this aspect - The objection not disclosing any error apparent on the face of the record. (Para 27)

(l) Administration of justice - Challenging a (Constitution Bench) judgment of Supreme Court by way of writ petition - Not permissible. (Para 29)

(m) Constitution of India - Article 144 - All civil authorities, judicial and non-judicial - Mandated to act in aid the Supreme Court - Expression “authorities” in Article 144 has to be given the widest possible meaning - Law laid down by Supreme Court is law of the land under Article 141 - Binding on all courts and authorities. (Para 32, 37, 40)

(n) Word and Phrases - Authority - Not defined in Constitution of India but used under several Articles - The word used in a wide or narrow sense depending upon the context. (Para 33, 34, 35)

(o) Constitution of India - Articles 75(4), 164(3), 99 and 188 read with the Third Schedule - Incumbent upon the Ministers of central and State Governments and all MPs and MLAs to faithfully aid in carrying out decrees and orders passed by the Supreme Court of India when such decrees and orders command a particular form of obedience - Any deviation from this principle is in derogation of the oath taken by every Minister and Legislator during his term of office - Rule of law. (Para 45, 63, 65)

(p) Administration of justice - Criticism of judgments - Supreme Court - Bona fide criticism permissible - However, thwarting, or encouraging persons to thwart the directions or orders of the Supreme Court cannot be countenanced. (Para 64)

Facts of the case:

This batch of cases includes review petition for review of the judgment on Sabarimala in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, W.P. (C) No.373 of 2006, which was delivered on 28 September, 2018. The writ petitions and SLP cover issues regarding entry of Muslim Women in Durgah/Mosque; of Parsi Women married to a non-Parsi in the Agyari; and including the practice of female genital mutilation in Dawoodi Bohra community.

Finding of the Court:

There is no error apparent on record in the judgment under review.

Result: Review petition dismissed.