Supreme Court Clarifies Review Petition Scope in Religious Freedom Cases: Kantaru Rajeevaru vs. Indian Young Lawyers Association (2020)

Date of the Judgment: 11 May 2020
Citation: Not Available
Judges: S.A. Bobde, CJI, R. Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan, L. Nageswara Rao, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, S. Abdul Nazeer, R. Subhash Reddy, B.R. Gavai, and Surya Kant, JJ. This was a nine-judge bench.

Can the Supreme Court refer questions of law to a larger bench during a review petition? This question was at the heart of a recent judgment concerning the scope of religious freedom in India. The Supreme Court, in this case, addressed whether it has the power to refer legal questions to a larger bench during the review process of a previous judgment. This judgment is significant as it clarifies the procedural aspects of how the Supreme Court handles complex legal issues, especially those concerning fundamental rights and religious practices. The nine-judge bench, led by Chief Justice S.A. Bobde, delivered the opinion.

Case Background

The case originated from a writ petition (W.P. (C) No. 373 of 2006) filed by the Indian Young Lawyers Association challenging Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965. This rule restricted the entry of women aged 10 to 50 years into the Sabarimala temple. The petitioners sought to remove these restrictions, arguing they violated the fundamental rights of women.

Initially, a three-judge bench referred the matter to a larger bench, which then constituted a five-judge Constitution Bench. On 28 September 2018, the Constitution Bench, by a 4:1 majority, ruled in favor of the petitioners, stating that devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a separate religious denomination and that the exclusion of women violated Article 25 of the Constitution of India. The Court also declared Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965, as ultra vires of Section 3 of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965.

Subsequently, several review petitions were filed, leading to the matter being referred to a larger bench of not less than seven judges by Ranjan Gogoi CJ, and A.M. Khanwilkar and Indu Malhotra, JJ. This reference was made to clarify the scope of religious freedom guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. The bench also noted that the determination of the questions of law would impact other pending cases related to religious practices.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The initial three-judge bench referred the matter to a larger bench to resolve the questions raised in the Writ Petition. The matter was then placed before a five-judge Constitution Bench, which ruled in favor of the petitioners. Following this, review petitions were filed, and a reference was made to a larger bench of not less than seven judges to address the scope of religious freedom under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. The reference was also made to resolve the conflict of opinion between the judgments in Commissioner Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras vs. Shri Lakshmindra Thritha Swaminar of Sri Shirur Mutt and Durgah Committee, Ajmer vs. Syed Hussain Ali & Ors. regarding the role of the Court in matters of essential religious practices.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation of the following articles of the Constitution of India:

• Article 25: This article guarantees the freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion, subject to public order, morality, and health.
• Article 26: This article grants religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs in matters of religion, subject to public order, morality, and health.
• Article 137: This article empowers the Supreme Court to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it, subject to any law made by Parliament or rules made under Article 145.
• Article 142: This article empowers the Supreme Court to make any order necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.
• Article 145: This article empowers the Supreme Court to make rules for regulating the practice and procedure of the Court.

The Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965, and the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965, were also relevant in the initial writ petition. Specifically, Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules was challenged for restricting women’s entry into the Sabarimala temple.

Arguments

Arguments Against the Reference:

• The review petitions were not maintainable under Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, as they did not meet the grounds for review in civil or criminal proceedings.
• A reference to a larger bench can only be made after a review is granted, not during the pendency of a review petition.
• Hypothetical questions should not be answered by the Supreme Court.
• Abstract questions of law without specific facts cannot be the subject of a reference.
• There was no prima facie view recorded to justify a conflict of opinion between the judgments in Shirur Mutt case and the Durgah Committee case.
• Only appeals can be referred to a larger bench, as per the proviso to Article 145(3) of the Constitution of India.

Arguments Supporting the Reference:

• The Supreme Court, being a superior court of record, has inherent powers to determine its own jurisdiction and make any order necessary for complete justice under Article 142 of the Constitution.
• Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules does not restrict the Court from making a reference in a review petition, especially since the review petitions arise from a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), where procedural rules are not strictly applied.
• Seminal questions of utmost importance require authoritative pronouncement by a larger bench to meet the ends of justice.
• There is no bar in the Supreme Court Rules preventing the Court from making a reference in a review petition.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The following issues were framed by the Supreme Court for consideration:

1. What is the scope and ambit of the right to freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution of India?
2. What is the interplay between the rights of persons under Article 25 of the Constitution of India and the rights of a 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 the 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?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• The Court considered the judgments in Commissioner Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras vs. Shri Lakshmindra Thritha Swaminar of Sri Shirur Mutt and Durgah Committee, Ajmer vs. Syed Hussain Ali & Ors. to highlight the conflict of opinion regarding the role of the Court in matters of essential religious practices, which necessitated the reference to a larger bench.
• The Court relied on Aswini Kumar Ghose and another vs. Arabinda Bose and another, Dr. M.K. Salpekar v. Sunil Kumar Shamsunder Chaudhari & Ors and Mohd. Shabir v. State of Maharashtra to interpret the importance of punctuation in statutory interpretation, which was used to interpret Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules.
• The Court distinguished Behram Pesikaka v. State of Bombay, stating that it was not a bar to making reference in a pending review petition.
• The Court used Babu Lal vs. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal to define the term ‘proceeding’ and held that it includes a pending review petition.
• The Court relied on Powers, Privileges and Immunities of State Legislatures, In re (Keshav Singh case) and Naresh Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra to support the argument that a superior court of record can determine its own jurisdiction.
• The Court relied on Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat to support the argument that a superior court of record has jurisdiction in every matter.
• The Court relied on Monica Kumar (Dr.) v. State of U.P to support the argument that the term ’cause or matter’ includes any proceeding pending in court, including review petitions.
• The Court relied on S. Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka to support the argument that the Court has inherent power to make orders for the sake of justice, which includes the power to refer questions of law in a pending proceeding.
• The Court distinguished Central Bank of India v. Workmen and stated that the questions of law are of utmost importance and require authoritative pronouncement.
• The Court relied on Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India to state that the present reference was to settle the legal position relating to the scope of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India.
• The Court relied on T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, M. P. Sharma and Others v. Satish Chandra, Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. to state that pure questions of law can be referred to a larger bench.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to allow the reference of questions of law in a review petition was primarily driven by the need to ensure complete justice and to clarify significant constitutional questions related to religious freedom. The Court emphasized its role as a superior court of record with inherent powers to determine its own jurisdiction and to make orders necessary for the ends of justice. The Court also noted that the questions of law were of utmost importance and required authoritative pronouncement by a larger bench to resolve the conflict of opinion between the judgments in Shirur Mutt case and the Durgah Committee case.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations of the Supreme Court Rules and the Constitution but rejected them, emphasizing that its inherent powers and the need to do complete justice allowed it to refer questions of law in a pending review petition. The Court clarified that the limitations in Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules do not apply to review petitions filed against judgments or orders in Writ Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Court also clarified that the proviso to Article 145(3) of the Constitution is not applicable in this case as the reference was made by a bench of five judges.

The decision was reached by a unanimous nine-judge bench. There were no dissenting opinions.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:

• The Supreme Court is a superior court of record and has the power to determine its own jurisdiction.
• The limitations in Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules apply only to civil and criminal proceedings, not to writ petitions.
• The term “proceeding” includes review petitions.
• Article 142 of the Constitution empowers the Court to make any order necessary for doing complete justice.
• The inherent power of the Court is not limited by the Rules.

“The Court may review its judgment or order, but no application for review will be entertained in a civil proceeding except on the ground mentioned in Order XLVII, rule 1 of the Code, and in a criminal proceeding except on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record.”

“Reference to a larger bench can be made in any cause or appeal as well as in any ‘other proceeding’.”

“Prima facie, no matter is deemed to be beyond the jurisdiction of a superior Court unless it is expressly shown to be so, while nothing is within the jurisdiction of an inferior Court unless it is expressly shown on the face of the proceedings that the particular matter is within the cognizance of the particular Court.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court can refer questions of law to a larger bench in a review petition.
• The limitations in Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules do not apply to review petitions arising from writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution.
• The Supreme Court has inherent powers to determine its own jurisdiction and to make orders necessary for complete justice.
• This judgment clarifies the procedural aspects of how the Supreme Court handles complex legal issues, especially those concerning fundamental rights and religious practices.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment, as it was primarily concerned with the maintainability of the reference.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court has the power to refer questions of law to a larger bench in a review petition, particularly when the review petition arises from a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. This clarifies the procedural powers of the Supreme Court and sets a precedent for future cases involving complex legal and constitutional questions.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Kantaru Rajeevaru vs. Indian Young Lawyers Association clarifies that the Court can refer questions of law to a larger bench during the review process. This decision underscores the Court’s inherent powers to ensure complete justice and to address complex legal questions, especially those related to fundamental rights and religious practices. The judgment provides clarity on the procedural aspects of the Supreme Court’s functioning and sets a significant precedent for future cases.

Category

Parent Category: Constitutional Law

Child Categories:

• Article 25, Constitution of India
• Article 26, Constitution of India
• Article 137, Constitution of India
• Article 142, Constitution of India
• Article 145, Constitution of India
• Review Petition
• Religious Freedom
• Public Interest Litigation
• Supreme Court Rules

Parent Category: Supreme Court of India

Child Categories:

• Inherent Powers
• Review Jurisdiction
• Reference to Larger Bench

Parent Category: Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965

Child Categories:

• Section 3, Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965

FAQ

Q: Can the Supreme Court refer a case to a larger bench during a review petition?

A: Yes, the Supreme Court has clarified that it can refer questions of law to a larger bench even during the review process of a previous judgment. This power is part of its inherent jurisdiction as a superior court of record.

Q: What is a review petition in the context of the Supreme Court?

A: A review petition is a request to the Supreme Court to reconsider its own judgment. It is usually filed when there is an error apparent on the face of the record or if there is a significant reason to re-examine the judgment.

Q: What are the key constitutional articles discussed in this judgment?

A: The key constitutional articles discussed are Article 25 (freedom of religion), Article 26 (rights of religious denominations), Article 137 (power of the Supreme Court to review its judgments), Article 142 (power of the Supreme Court to do complete justice), and Article 145 (power of the Supreme Court to make rules for regulating its practice and procedure).

Q: What does it mean for the Supreme Court to be a ‘superior court of record’?

A: Being a ‘superior court of record’ means that the Supreme Court has inherent powers to determine its own jurisdiction and to make orders necessary for the ends of justice. Its decisions are binding and are recorded for future reference.

Q: Why was this judgment important for the Sabarimala temple case?

A: This judgment was important because it arose from a review petition related to the Sabarimala temple case, where the entry of women was restricted. The judgment clarifies the Supreme Court’s power to refer questions of law to a larger bench during a review, which has implications for how the Court handles complex cases involving religious practices and fundamental rights.