Mehta reads out the provisions under the Supreme Court rules to say that a matter may be referred to a larger Bench when the Court feels that some questions need to be decided by a Bench of larger strength.
#SupremeCourt
Prikaži ovu nit
-
Nariman says that the larger issues cannot be decided without going into the facts of the individual cases. Senior Counsel Kapil Sibal says that whatever the Court says in the matter will have an impact across the country.
#SupremeCourtPrikaži ovu nit
Sibal says, how does one interpret Articles 14, 25, 26; whatever the Court has will have an impact on a large number of things. Senior Counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi adds, that the matter how has become one of whether the nine-Judge Bench can hear issues
-
-
Whether or not the nine-Judge Bench can hear the issues in the reference has become an issue, Singhvi adds
Prikaži ovu nit -
Senior Counsel Rajeev Dhavan submits before the Court that it is permissible for the Court to hear the issues referred in Sabarimala review. Dhavan adds that, Nariman however is right to say that
#Sabarimala review is different from the larger reference made.Prikaži ovu nit -
Dhavan says that Nariman is right to point out that Sabarimala issue was already decided and a review of the same was sought. Other issues (like Muslim women's entry in mosques, FGM etc) are pending.
#SupremeCourt#SabarimalaPrikaži ovu nit -
CJI Bobde clarifies yet again that this nine-Judge Bench will not decide the Sabarimala review, nor will it decide the individual cases concerning FGM, Parsi women's rights, etc.
#SupremeCourtPrikaži ovu nit -
Senior Counsel Rakesh Dwivedi points out that two of the five Judges hearing the
#Sabarimala review had dismissed the review petition.#SupremeCourtPrikaži ovu nit -
Sibal states that Art. 25 is subject to Part 3 which means A.14 which is state action,l. Sibal says that specific questions need to be framed.
#SupremeCourtPrikaži ovu nit -
Sibal says that there needs to be harmonious interpretation of Articles 25 and 26. Senior Counsel Jaideep Gupta agrees with the submission made by Sibal on harmonious interpretation.
#SupremeCourt#SabarimalaPrikaži ovu nit -
Senior Counsel Shyam Divan, supporting Nariman's argument, reads out from the majority opinion of the
#Sabarimala review judgment.#SupremeCourtPrikaži ovu nit -
Divan points out the wordings used in
#Sabarimala majority opinion which said that there "may be" overlapping issues. Divan says there is no assertion but a conjecture. There are seven issues enumerated as possible issues that may be decided by a larger issue, he saysPrikaži ovu nit -
Divan says that everything in the reference order is in the nature of speculation.
#Sabarimala#SupremeCourtPrikaži ovu nit -
Divan cites CJI Bobde's finding in the
#Puttaswamy judgment where it was said that when a matter is before 9-Judge Bench, it is such a rare occurence that the Court must decide on the narrowest possible issue.#Sabarimala#SupremeCourtPrikaži ovu nit -
Divan refers to the Nov 14, 2019 judgment, says that the scope of review is very narrow.
#Sabarimala#SupremeCourtPrikaži ovu nit -
Divan argues that if a reference was to be made, it should have been done in the September 2018 main Judgment in
#Sabarimala matter, reference cannot be made in a review. Nariman adds there are a lot of judgments on the scope of review jurisdiction#SupremeCourtPrikaži ovu nit -
Divan submits that the Court should see if two conflicting judgments can be reconciled and not frame specific number of issues as is being suggested since it is a review proceedings.
#Sabarimala#SupremeCourtPrikaži ovu nit -
Divan concluded by saying that the hearing should be held in two parts, one on the scope of the reference and second on the remaining issues.
#Sabarimala#SupremeCourtPrikaži ovu nit -
Senior Counsel K Parasaran begins making his submissions now.
#Sabarimala#SupremeCourtPrikaži ovu nit -
Parasaran says that
#Sabarimala was a public interest litigation and in PIL, the Court can look into past, present and the future.#SupremeCourtPrikaži ovu nit -
Parasaran refers to earlier judgments where request for such reference to be rejected was made. Parasaran says, such requests were declined bu the Court
#Sabarimala#SupremeCourtPrikaži ovu nit -
CJI SA Bobde proposes adjourning the natter for the time being till the nine-Judge Bench can frame issues in the matter which will include the question of scope of reference also.
#Sabarimala#SupremeCourtPrikaži ovu nit -
CJI SA Bobde says that all the Counsel have submitted that the Court can frame the issues in the matter and "we are going to do that"
#Sabarimala#SupremeCourtPrikaži ovu nit -
Matter is adjourned for framing of issues by the Court; Court to decide on allocation of time the timeframe on Thursday. Bench rises.
#Sabarimala#SupremeCourtPrikaži ovu nit
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.