Kantaru Rajeevaru vs Indian Young Lawyers Association

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2020 Supreme(SC) 839

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.A. BOBDE, CJI., R. BANUMATHI, ASHOK BHUSHAN, L. NAGESWARA RAO, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, S. ABDUL NAZEER, R. SUBHASH REDDY, B.R. GAVAI, SURYA KANT, JJ.
Kantaru Rajeevaru – Appellant
Versus
Indian Young Lawyers Association Thr. Its General Secretary Ms. Bhakti Pasrija and Ors. – Respondents
Review Petition (Civil) No. 3358 of 2018 In Writ Petition (Civil) No. 373 of 2006, MA No.3113 of 2018, SLP(C) No. 18889/2012, W.P.(C) No. 286 of 2017, 472 of 2019, 1305, 1323, 1339, 1285 of 2018, R.P.(C) No. 3359, 3469, 3480, 3473, 3449, 3470, 3377, 3381, 3380, 3379, 3444, 3457, 3462 of 2018, 345 of 2019, Diary No. 41896, 37946, 38764, 38769, 38907, 38135, 38136, 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, 42085, 42264, 42337, 44021, 44991, 46720, 47720 of 2018 2252, 2998-2019 Decided on : 11-05-2020

Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 142, 145, 26, 137, 145, 25 (1) – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XLVII, Rule 1 – Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965 – Section 3 – Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 – Section 27 – Essential religious practices – Criminal proceedings – Supreme Court's verdicts and rulings to be enforced – Writ Petition was placed before a Constitution Bench consisting of five Judges – By a majority this Court allowed Writ Petition – It was held by this Court that devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a separate religious denomination and therefore cannot claim the benefit of Article 26 of Constitution of India – This Court also concluded that exclusion of women between ages from entry into temple is violative of Article 25 of Constitution of India – Held, Regarding contention that pure questions of law cannot be referred to a larger bench, it was argued that it is not possible for the Court to decide the reference without any facts of a particular case before it – Court do not agree – It is not necessary to refer to facts to decide pure questions of law, especially those pertaining to interpretation of provisions of Constitution – In fact, reference of pure questions of law have been answered by this Court earlier – One such instance was when this Court was convinced that a larger bench has to discern true scope and interpretation of Article 30 (1) of Constitution of India – An eleven Judge Bench was constituted for the purpose and eleven questions of law were framed and answered – Yet another case where there was a reference of pure questions of law for larger bench needs mention – Finding a conflict between the judgments of this Court Judge Bench of this Court referred matter to a larger bench of five Judge Constitution Bench, which referred issue relating to existence of fundamental right to privacy in Article 21 of Constitution of India to a nine Judge Bench – Question whether there is a constitutionally protected right to privacy was decided by a nine Judge Bench of this Court in Justice without reference to any facts. As stated above, determination of scope of Articles 25 and 26 is of paramount importance – To adjudicate reference, there is no requirement to refer to any disputed facts by this Court – Allowed writ petition.

ORDER :

S.A.BOBDE, CJI.

1. Indian Young Lawyers Association filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 373 of 2006 challenging the validity of Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 (for short, “the 1965 Rules”). A further direction to the respondents therein to permit female devotees between the ages of 10 to 50 years to enter the Sabarimala temple without any restrictions was sought in the Writ Petition. By an order dated 30th October 2017, a three Judge bench of this Court referred the matter to a larger bench for resolution of the questions raised in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition was placed before a Constitution Bench consisting of five Judges. By a majority of 4:1, this Court allowed the Writ Petition on 28.09.2018. It was held by this Court that the devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a separate religious denomination and therefore cannot claim the benefit of Article 26 of the Constitution of India. This Court also concluded that exclusion of women between the ages of 10 to 50 years from entry into the temple is violative of Article 25 of the Constitution of India. Further, Rule 3 (b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 was declared as violative of Article 25 (1) to the Constitution of India and ultravires Section 3 of Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965.

2. Several review petitions were filed which were listed along with fresh Writ Petitions in open Court and heard together. Ranjan Gogoi CJ, and A.M. Khanwilkar and Indu Malhotra, JJ were of the opinion that the scope of the freedom of religion guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution needs an authoritative pronouncement by a larger bench of not less than seven Judges. The contours of judicial review in matters pertaining to essential religious practices was another issue which was identified to be adjudicated upon by a larger bench. According to them, the determination of the questions of law referred to a larger bench would have a bearing on pending writ petitions relating to entry of Muslim women in durgahs/mosques, the entry of Parsi women married to non-Parsis into the holy fire place of Agyari and the challenge to the practice of female genital mutilation in Dawoodi Bohra Community. In such view, certain questions of law were referred to a larger bench. According to the reference, the conflict of opinion between the judgments in Commissioner Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras vs. Shri Lakshmindra Thritha Swaminar of Sri Shirur Mutt, [1954] SCR 1005, and Durgah Committee, Ajmer vs. Syed Hussain Ali & Ors., [1962] 1 SCR 383 pertaining to the role of the Court in matters which are essential religious practices had to be resolved.

3. The following issues were framed for consideration to be decided by a larger bench:

(ii) What is the sweep of expression ‘public order, morality and health’ occurring in Article 25(1) of the Constitution.

(iii) The expression ‘morality’ or ‘constitutional morality’ has not been defined in the Constitution. Is it over arching morality in reference to preamble or limited to religious beliefs or faith. There is need to delineate the contours of that expression, lest it becomes subjective.

(iv) The extent to which the Court can enquire into the issue of a particular practice is an integral part of the religion or religious practice of a particular religious denomination or should that be left exclusively to be determined by the head of the section of the religious group.

(v) What is the meaning of the expression ‘sections of Hindus’ appearing in Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution.

(vi) Whether the “essential religious practices” of a religious denomination, or even a section thereof are afforded constitutional protection under Article 26.

(