[Breaking] Sabarimala Reference: SC holds that questions can be referred to a larger Bench even in review petitions, Frames seven issues for 9-judge bench

A nine-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court today held that questions can be referred to a larger Bench even in review petitions..Further, the Court also intimated that questions pertaining to the following larger issues will be taken up by the nine-Judge Bench i.e.,Ambit and scope of religious freedom;Interplay between rights of people under Article 25 and the rights of religious denominations under Article 26 of the Constitution of India;Whether rights of religious denomination are subject to other provisions of Part III of the Constitution;Scope and extent of morality under Articles 25 and 26 and whether it includes Constitunal morality;Whether religious denominations enjoy fundamental rights;Meaning of expression "section of Hindus" under Article 25(2)(b);Whether a person not belonging to a religious group can question practice of that religious group by filing a PIL..The Court will hear arguments on these issues on a day-to-day basis. The arguments are to begin on February 17, in line with a request made on behalf of all the parties..The Court today also suggested giving one entire day for arguments to the lead counsel on each side. CJI SA Bobde added that each side may get five days each, extendable by two days. He suggested that the arguments be wound up within the time frame fixed.."Considering the way everyone argued on February 6, it is entirely possible to finish arguments in seven days for each side."CJI SA Bobde said..The decision was rendered this morning by the Bench headed by CJI Bobde that was set up to hear the questions of law referred to by a five-judge Bench in an order passed on review pleas challenging the 2018 Sabarimala judgment..At the outset, before the Bench could even indulge in the exercise of framing of the issues to be considered by this nine-Judge Bench, the jurisdiction of the Bench was questioned by Senior Counsel Fali Nariman, and backed by various other Senior Advocates. It was contended that the scope of review jurisdiction is very narrow and the Court cannot make reference in the same..The Court had taken up for hearing this preliminary question of jurisdiction on February 6 and after a day long hearing, the Court had reserved its order on the same..Sabarimala: Supreme Court to pronounce order on maintainability of reference on Feb 10.Senior Counsel Nariman had opposed the maintainability of the reference, arguing that the scope of a review petition is very narrow and limited to any error in the main judgment. He submitted that the five-Judge Bench headed by the then CJI Ranjan Gogoi could not have made a reference of questions to a larger Bench while adjourning the review proceedings..Nariman found support from Senior Counsel Indira Jaising, Shyam Divan, Jaideep Gupta, Rakesh Dwivedi and Rajeev Dhavan, among others..Of those favouring the reference, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, argued that there is no express bar on the Court from exercising its jurisdiction to refer questions to a larger Bench. Singhvi argued that the five-Judge Bench has sought "guidance" from a larger Bench to be able to decide on a matter of review. After the larger questions are settled by the nine-Judge Bench, the review petitions in Sabarimala will be reverted to the "review Bench" to decide the review finally..Besides Singhvi and SG Tushar Mehta, the battery of Senior Advocates in favour of the maintainability of the reference included K Parasaran, CS Vaidyanathan, Ranjeet Kumar, V Giri, Arvind Datar and PS Narasimhan.[Read the Order]