- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Kantaru Rajeevaru v. Indian Young Lawyers...
Factual and Procedural Background
The opinion arises in Review Petition (Civil) No. 3358 of 2018 and a batch of connected matters pending before the Supreme Court of India. The petitions seek review of the judgment delivered in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 373 of 2006 and allied cases concerning entry into the Sabarimala temple. After hearing the parties “at length,” the Court states that it is competent to refer questions of law to a larger bench even at the review stage. The present order frames specific constitutional questions for such reference.
Legal Issues Presented
- What is the scope and ambit of the right to freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution of India?
- What is the inter-play between the rights of persons under Article 25 and the rights of a religious denomination under Article 26 of the Constitution of India?
- Whether the rights of a religious denomination under Article 26 are subject to other provisions of Part III of the Constitution apart from public order, morality and health?
- What is the scope and extent of the word “morality” in Articles 25 and 26, and does it encompass the concept of constitutional morality?
- What is the scope and extent of judicial review with regard to a religious practice as referred to in Article 25?
- What is the meaning of the expression “Sections of Hindus” in Article 25(2)(b)?
- Whether a person not belonging to a religious denomination or group can challenge a practice of that denomination or group by filing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL)?
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court records that it has heard extensive submissions from all parties. On the basis of those submissions—details of which are not set out in the text—the Court concludes that it possesses the authority to refer pure questions of law to a larger bench even while exercising its review jurisdiction. Having so held, the Court enumerates seven constitutionally significant questions (listed above) that warrant consideration by a larger bench. No further analytical steps or doctrinal justifications are provided in the excerpt.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The Supreme Court holds that it can refer substantial questions of law to a larger bench in the course of deciding a Review Petition.
Implications: The seven framed questions will now be examined by a larger bench, delaying final adjudication of the review petitions until those questions are resolved. The order does not decide the merits of the underlying controversy and sets no new substantive precedent beyond affirming the Court’s power to make such a reference.
1. We have heard the parties at length. For reasons to follow, we hold that this Court can refer questions of law to a larger bench in a Review Petition.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL INHERENT/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
Review Petition (Civil) No. 3358 of 2018
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 373 of 2006
Kantaru Rajeevaru.….Petitioner
v.
Indian Young Lawyers Association Thr. its General Secretary Ms. Bhakti Pasrija and Ors.….Respondents
SLP(C) No. 18889/2012, W.P.(C) No. 286/2017, R.P.(C) No. 3359/2018 in W.P. (C) No. 373/2006, Diary No. 37946-2018, R.P.(C) No. 3469/2018 in W.P.(C) No. 373/2006, Diary No. 38135-2018, Diary No. 38136-2018, R.P.(C) No. 3449/2018 in W.P.(C) No. 373/2006, W.P.(C) No. 1285/2018, R.P.(C) No. 3470/2018 in W.P.(C) No. 373/2006, R.P.(C) No. 3380/2018 in W.P.(C) No. 373/2006, R.P.(C) No. 3379/2018 in W.P.(C) No. 373/2006, R.P.(C) No. 3444/2018 in W.P.(C) No. 373/2006, R.P.(C) No. 3462/2018 in W.P.(C) No. 373/2006, Diary No. 38764-2018, Diary No. 38769-2018, Diary No. 38907-2018, R.P.(C) No. 3377/2018 in W.P.(C) No. 373/2006, Diary No. 39023-2018, Diary No. 39135-2018, Diary No. 39248-2018, Diary No. 39258-2018, Diary No. 39317-2018, W.P.(C) No. 1323/2018, W.P.(C) No. 1305/2018, Diary No. 39642-2018, R.P.(C) No. 3381/2018 in W.P.(C) No. 373/2006, Diary No. 40056-2018, Diary No. 40191-2018, Diary No. 40405-2018, Diary No. 40570-2018, Diary No. 40681-2018, Diary No. 40713-2018, Diary No. 40840-2018, Diary No. 40885-2018, Diary No. 40887-2018, Diary No. 40888-2018, Diary No. 40898-2018, R.P.(C) No. 3457/2018 in W.P.(C) No. 373/2006, Diary No. 40910-2018, Diary No. 40924-2018, Diary No. 40929-2018, Diary No. 41005-2018, Diary No. 41091-2018, W.P.(C) No. 1339/2018, Diary No. 41264-2018, R.P.(C) No. 3473/2018 in W.P.(C) No. 373/2006, Diary No. 41395-2018, Diary No. 41586-2018, R.P.(C) No. 3480/2018 in W.P.(C) No. 373/2006, Diary No. 41896-2018, Diary No. 42085-2018, Diary No. 42264-2018, Diary No. 42337-2018, MA 3113/2018 in W.P.(C) No. 373/2006, Diary No. 44021-2018, Diary No. 44991-2018, Diary No. 46720-2018, Diary No. 47720-2018, Diary No. 2252-2019, R.P.(C) No. 345/2019 in W.P.(C) No. 373/2006, Diary No. 2998-2019, W.P.(C) No. 472/2019
2. The following issues are framed for consideration by this Court:-
1. What is the scope and ambit of right to freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution of India?
2. What is the inter-play between the rights of persons under Article 25 of the Constitution of India and rights of religious denomination under Article 26 of the Constitution of India?
3. Whether the rights of a religious denomination under Article 26 of the Constitution of India are subject to other provisions of Part III of the Constitution of India apart from public order, morality and health?
4. What is the scope and extent of the word ‘morality’ under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India and whether it is meant to include Constitutional morality?
5. What is the scope and extent of judicial review with regard to a religious practice as referred to in Article 25 of the Constitution of India?
6. What is the meaning of expression “Sections of Hindus” occurring in Article 25 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India?
7. Whether a person not belonging to a religious denomination or religious group can question a practice of that religious denomination or religious group by filing a PIL?
Alert