The Supreme Court has turned down urgent listing of the review petitions filed against the Constitution Bench ‘s judgement allowing entry of all women into Sabarimala temple..The matter was mentioned by Advocate Mathews Nedumpara, appearing for review petitioners Shailaja Vijayan and Others..An interim injunction on the operation of the order was sought by the petitioners on the ground that the Temple reopens for devotees on October 16..The Bench of Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Justices KM Joseph and Sanjay Kishan Kaul turned down urgent listing of the case with CJI Gogoi saying,.“We have heard you… The matter will be listed in due course.”.At least four petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court seeking a review of the Constitution Bench’s decision in the Sabarimala case, delivered on September 28..Review petitions have been filed by Nair Service Society (Respondent No. 6 in the original matter), Shylaja Vijayan, President of the National Ayyappa Devotees Association, People for Dharma, and Chetana Conscience of Women, a Delhi-based NGO working for empowering women and society in general.The review petition filed by Shylaja Vijayan notes that the Supreme Court’s verdict in the Sabarimala case has “sent shock waves among millions of Ayyappa devotees”. It states,.“The judgment under review is an interference with the faith and belief of millions of devotees of Lord Ayyappa, which the Court is not empowered to do and certainly not without notice to them and without hearing them. The judgment dated 28th September, 2018 is, therefore, one rendered void ab initio…”.Filed through Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara, the review petition states that the judgment is a “gross abuse of a procedure named Public Interest Litigation”..The petition further claims that the Sabarimala verdict is liable to be reviewed for want of jurisdiction. It points out that the petitioners in the original matter were not devotees of Lord Ayyappa, and hence had no cause of action to approach the Court..“The writ Petitioner Indian Young Lawyers’ Association, an inanimate entity, cannot plead any fundamental right; only a human being, an animate entity, can claim a fundamental right.”
The Supreme Court has turned down urgent listing of the review petitions filed against the Constitution Bench ‘s judgement allowing entry of all women into Sabarimala temple..The matter was mentioned by Advocate Mathews Nedumpara, appearing for review petitioners Shailaja Vijayan and Others..An interim injunction on the operation of the order was sought by the petitioners on the ground that the Temple reopens for devotees on October 16..The Bench of Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Justices KM Joseph and Sanjay Kishan Kaul turned down urgent listing of the case with CJI Gogoi saying,.“We have heard you… The matter will be listed in due course.”.At least four petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court seeking a review of the Constitution Bench’s decision in the Sabarimala case, delivered on September 28..Review petitions have been filed by Nair Service Society (Respondent No. 6 in the original matter), Shylaja Vijayan, President of the National Ayyappa Devotees Association, People for Dharma, and Chetana Conscience of Women, a Delhi-based NGO working for empowering women and society in general.The review petition filed by Shylaja Vijayan notes that the Supreme Court’s verdict in the Sabarimala case has “sent shock waves among millions of Ayyappa devotees”. It states,.“The judgment under review is an interference with the faith and belief of millions of devotees of Lord Ayyappa, which the Court is not empowered to do and certainly not without notice to them and without hearing them. The judgment dated 28th September, 2018 is, therefore, one rendered void ab initio…”.Filed through Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara, the review petition states that the judgment is a “gross abuse of a procedure named Public Interest Litigation”..The petition further claims that the Sabarimala verdict is liable to be reviewed for want of jurisdiction. It points out that the petitioners in the original matter were not devotees of Lord Ayyappa, and hence had no cause of action to approach the Court..“The writ Petitioner Indian Young Lawyers’ Association, an inanimate entity, cannot plead any fundamental right; only a human being, an animate entity, can claim a fundamental right.”