Kantaru Rajeevaru v. Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors

 Case Name: Kantaru Rajeevaru v. Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors         

Facts Of the Case

The dispute originated from a writ petition filed by the Indian Young Lawyers Association before the Supreme Court. The petition challenged Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965. The petition also sought permission for women between the ages of 10 and 50 years to enter the Sabarimala temple without restrictions.

Initially, the matter was considered by a three-Judge Bench, which referred it to a larger Bench. A five-Judge Constitution Bench subsequently heard the matter and, by a majority of 4:1 on 28 September 2018, allowed the writ petition. The Court held, among other things, that the devotees of Lord Ayyappa did not constitute a separate religious denomination and therefore could not claim protection under Article 26. It also held that the exclusion of women between 10 and 50 years from entering the temple violated Article 25.

Following the 2018 judgment, several review petitions were filed. During the hearing of these review petitions, questions arose regarding the scope of religious freedom under Articles 25 and 26, the role of judicial review in matters of religion, essential religious practices and the meaning of constitutional morality.

A larger Bench was therefore required to consider these important constitutional questions. A Nine-Judge Bench was constituted for this purpose. Before considering the substantive constitutional questions, the Bench first had to determine whether the review petitions and the reference to the larger Bench were legally maintainable.

Issues of The Case

The Nine-Judge Bench reframed the questions for consideration as follows:

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 and the rights of religious denominations under Article 26?

3. 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?

4. What is the scope and extent of the word “morality” under Articles 25 and 26 and whether it includes constitutional morality?

5. What is the scope and extent of judicial review with regard to a religious practice under Article 25?

6. What is the meaning of the expression “sections of Hindus” occurring in Article 25(2)(b)?

7. Whether a person who does not belong to a religious denomination or religious group can question a practice of that denomination or group by filing a PIL?

Arguments of the Parties

Arguments against the reference

The parties opposing the reference argued that the review petitions were not maintainable and that questions could not be referred to a larger Bench while the review petitions were still pending. They also argued that hypothetical or purely legal questions should not be answered without the factual background of a particular dispute.

Arguments supporting the reference

The parties supporting the reference argued that the Supreme Court, being a superior Court of record, possesses broad powers to determine its jurisdiction. They also relied upon Article 142 and argued that the questions concerning Articles 25 and 26 were of great constitutional importance and required authoritative consideration by a larger Bench.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court held that the review petitions were maintainable.

The Court further held that the reference of questions of law to a larger Bench during the pendency of the review petitions was also maintainable.

Thus, the Court upheld its power to refer important questions of law to a larger Bench in a pending review proceeding. The Court concluded:

“the instant review petitions and the reference arising from the review petitions are maintainable.”

The operative order also recorded that the Court could refer questions of law to a larger Bench in a Review Petition.

Reasoning:

A. Power of the Supreme Court to Review its Judgments

The Court considered Article 137 of the Constitution, which gives the Supreme Court the power to review its judgments and orders, subject to applicable laws and rules.

The Court examined Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. It observed that the restrictions mentioned in that rule specifically relate to civil and criminal proceedings. Article 32 writ proceedings do not fall within those categories. Therefore, the restrictions applicable to ordinary civil and criminal proceedings did not prevent review petitions arising from an Article 32 writ petition.

B. Whether a Reference Can Be Made During a Pending Review Petition

The Court then considered whether a question of law could be referred to a larger Bench while the review petition was still pending.

The Court relied upon Order VI Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, which permits a Bench to refer a matter to a larger Bench when it considers that the matter should be dealt with by such a Bench.

The Court held that the expression “other proceeding” is broad enough to include a pending review petition. Therefore, there was no legal bar on making a reference to a larger Bench during the pendency of the review petitions.

C. Whether Pure Questions of Law Can Be Referred

The Court rejected the argument that constitutional questions of law cannot be considered without disputed facts.

It observed that important constitutional questions have previously been referred to larger Benches even where the questions involved the interpretation of constitutional provisions rather than the determination of disputed facts. The Court referred to decisions including T.M.A. Pai Foundation and K.S. Puttaswamy as examples.

D. Article 145(3)

The Court also considered the argument based on Article 145(3).

It held that the proviso to Article 145(3), relied upon by the objectors, applied where a Bench consisting of fewer than five Judges refers a constitutional question. In the present matter, the reference had been made by a five-Judge Bench. Therefore, the proviso did not prevent the reference.

E. Power of the Court to Refer Questions to a Larger Bench

The Court also emphasised that it is a superior Court of record and has the power to determine questions relating to its own jurisdiction. It held that there was no express constitutional restriction preventing it from referring questions of law to a larger Bench in a pending review proceeding.

Ratio Decidendi

The Ratio Decidendi of the case can be stated in simple language as follows:

The Supreme Court has the power to entertain review petitions arising from an Article 32 writ proceeding and can refer important questions of law to a larger Bench while the review petitions are still pending. There is no legal bar preventing such a reference.

Therefore, the central legal principle of this judgment concerns the maintainability of the review petitions and the validity of the reference to the larger Bench, rather than the final determination of the seven substantive questions concerning religious freedom.

Important Precedents

1. Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Shri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Shirur Mutt

The case is significant for the development of the Essential Religious Practices doctrine. The present reference arose partly because of the perceived difference between the approach in Shirur Mutt and Durgah Committee.

2. Durgah Committee, Ajmer v. Syed Hussain Ali

This decision was relevant to the question of how courts should examine whether a particular practice forms an essential part of a religion. The perceived conflict between this judgment and Shirur Mutt was one of the reasons for referring the constitutional questions to a larger Bench.

3. T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka

The Court relied upon this case to show that pure questions of constitutional law can be referred to a larger Bench for authoritative determination.

4. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India

The Court referred to this case as an example where an important constitutional question was decided by a Nine-Judge Bench without the need to determine disputed facts.

5. S. Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka

This case was relied upon in relation to the inherent power of the Supreme Court to review or recall its orders where necessary to prevent injustice.

Significance of the Case:

The case is significant because it paved the way for a larger constitutional examination of the relationship between religious freedom and other Fundamental Rights.

It also brought important questions concerning constitutional morality, essential religious practices, judicial review of religious practices, religious denominations and PILs before a larger Bench. The reference arose because of the need to clarify important questions concerning Articles 25 and 26 and the judicial approach towards religious practices.

However, it is important to distinguish the reference order from the final adjudication of the seven constitutional questions. The judgment in your uploaded PDF primarily decides the maintainability of the review petitions and the reference itself.

Conclusion:

Although the case involved important questions concerning Articles 25 and 26, the judgment under analysis did not finally decide those seven substantive questions. The Court primarily decided whether the review petitions were maintainable and whether the questions of law could validly be referred to a larger Bench. The seven constitutional questions were framed for consideration by the larger Bench.

Reference(S):

1. live law
2. indian kanoon
3. superme court website