Know About the Sabrimala Review Petition

The matter of the Sabarimala temple was assigned to a larger seven-judge bench. The previous ruling allowing women of all ages to visit the Sabarimala temple is still in effect. A five-member bench led by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi will rule on petitions seeking a reversal of its September 2018 order allowing menstruation women to access Kerala’s Ayyappa shrine.

Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that women of all ages must be permitted entry to Kerala’s iconic Ayyappa shrine. The decree lifted a centuries-old prohibition on women and girls aged 10 to 50. The main thrust of the judgment was that devotion could not entail gender discrimination. Let’s see what is Sabrimala Review Petition?

Case Background of Sabrimala Review Petition 

The Supreme Court ruled on September 28th, 2018, that the Sabarimala Temple’s discriminatory custom is unconstitutional. Women between the ages of 10 and 50 were not allowed to enter the temple, according to tradition. The custom, according to the major verdict, infringed on female worshippers’ basic right to freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution.

Constitutional Provisions for the Sabrimala Review Petition

Article 137 of the Constitution of India grants the Supreme Court the power to review any of its judgments or orders. This power is however subject to to the Rules made by the Supreme Court under Article 145 , as well as the provisions of any law enacted by parliament. These Constitutional Provisions for the Sabrimala Review Petition.

The Supreme Court can refer questions of law to a larger bench while exercising its review jurisdiction, according to the 9-judge bench of SA Bobde, CJ, and R Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan, L Nageswara Rao, M M Shantanagoudar, S A Nazeer, R Subhash Reddy, B R Gavai, and Surya Kant, JJ, hearing the Sabarimala reference. All these Constitutional Provisions for the Sabrimala Review Petition after renowned jurist and senior advocate Fali Nariman objected to the way the Supreme Court turned a review of the Sabarimala case into an opportunity to set up a nine-judge Bench and examine whether certain essential religious practises of various faiths, including Islam and Zoroastrianism, should be constitutionally protected, the bench reserved its decision on the said legal issue while hearing the Sabarimala reference on February 6, 2020.

The Review Petition

On November 14th, 2019, the Bench issued a decision that kept the review petitions waiting while sending certain underlying constitutional problems to a bigger Bench. Women’s access to public religious institutions is at the centre of these broader challenges. The Bench hypothesised that other freedom of religion cases might disagree with the rationale in the 2018 Sabarimala ruling and order a referral by a narrow 3:2 majority. Justices Nariman and Chandrachud dissented, claiming that the speculation went beyond the scope of the review petition. A new Bench, consisting of the judges listed below, will begin hearing the overall referral questions on January 13th, 2020. R. Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan, Nageswara Rao, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, S. Abdul Nazeer, R. Subhash Reddy, and B.R. Gavai, Chief Justice S.A. Bobde and Justices, R. Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan, Nageswara Rao, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, S. Abdul Nazeer, R. Subhash Reddy and Surya Kant.

Grounds to Seek Review Petition in India

Let us now find out the Grounds to Seek a Review Petition in India:

• It is important to note that the Court does not consider every review petition filed. It uses its discretion to grant a review petition only when the grounds for the request are demonstrated.
• The Supreme Court has established three grounds for requesting a reversal of a decision:
• The discovery of fresh and significant information or evidence that, despite the petitioner’s best efforts, was not known to him or could not be produced by him;
• On the face of the record, there is a mistake or error; or
• Is any other sufficient reason that is comparable to the first two.

Filing a Petition for Review

Any individual aggrieved by a judgement can request a review under the Civil Procedure Code and the Supreme Court Rules. This means that a review of a ruling does not have to be limited to the parties to the case. Knowing the Grounds to Seek a Review Petition in India is important before filing a petition.

Within 30 days of the date of the judgement or decree, a Review Petition must be submitted. In some cases, the court will excuse a petitioner’s delay in submitting a review petition if the petitioner can show compelling reasons for the delay.

Conclusion

The court is hearing a slew of petitions asking for a reversal of its September 2018 decision, which overturned the ban on menstruating women worshipping at Kerala’s Sabarimala temple. So far, we have seen What is Sabrimala Review Petition? In a landmark 4:1 verdict, the Supreme Court overturned decades-old bans on women of menstrual age entering the temple. The decision provoked a wave of protests across the state, leading to the filing of many applications requesting reconsideration of the top court’s judgment, questioning the court’s power to intervene in people’s beliefs. Any individual who is aggrieved by a judgment can request a review under the Civil Procedure Code and the Supreme Court Rules.