Ordinarily, review petitions ought to proceed on the principlepredicated in Order XLVII in Part IV of the Supreme Court Rules,2013. However, along with review petitions several fresh writpetitions have been ...
No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 3358/2018
IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 373/2006
KANTARU RAJEEVARU ….PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION
THR.ITS GENERAL SECRETARY
AND ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
R.P.(C) NO. 3359/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO. 373/2006;
DIARY NO(S). 37946/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO. 373/2006;
R.P.(C) NO. 3469/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO. 373/2006;
DIARY NO(S). 38135/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO. 373/2006;
DIARY NO(S). 38136/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO. 373/2006;
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(S). 38764/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO.373/2006;
DIARY NO(S). 38769/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO.373/2006;
2
DIARY NO(S). 38907/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO.373/2006;
R.P.(C) NO. 3377/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO. 373/2006
DIARY NO(S). 39023/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO.373/2006;
DIARY NO(S). 39135/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO.373/2006;
DIARY NO(S). 39248/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO.373/2006;
DIARY NO(S). 39258/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO.373/2006;
DIARY NO(S). 39317/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO.373/2006;
W.P.(C) NO. 1323/2018
W.P.(C) NO. 1305/2018
DIARY NO(S). 39642/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO.373/2006;
R.P.(C) NO. 3381/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO. 373/2006;
DIARY NO(S). 40056/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO.373/2006;
DIARY NO(S). 40191/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO.373/2006;
DIARY NO(S). 40405/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO.373/2006;
DIARY NO(S). 40570/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO.373/2006;
DIARY NO(S). 40681/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO.373/2006;
DIARY NO(S). 40713/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO.373/2006;
DIARY NO(S). 40840/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO.373/2006;
DIARY NO(S). 40885/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO.373/2006;
DIARY NO(S). 40887/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO.373/2006;
DIARY NO(S). 40888/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO.373/2006;
DIARY NO(S). 40898/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO.373/2006;
R.P.(C) NO. 3457/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO. 373/2006;
3
DIARY NO(S). 40910/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO.373/2006;
DIARY NO(S). 40924/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO.373/2006;
DIARY NO(S). 40929/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO.373/2006;
DIARY NO(S). 41005/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO.373/2006;
DIARY NO(S). 41091/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO.373/2006;
W.P.(C) NO. 1339/2018;
DIARY NO(S). 41264/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO.373/2006;
R.P.(C) NO. 3473/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO. 373/2006;
DIARY NO(S). 41395/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO.373/2006;
DIARY NO(S). 41586/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO.373/2006;
R.P.(C) NO. 3480/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO. 373/2006;
DIARY NO(S). 41896/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO.373/2006;
DIARY NO(S). 42085/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO.373/2006;
DIARY NO(S). 42264/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO.373/2006;
DIARY NO(S). 42337/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO.373/2006;
MA 3113/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO. 373/2006;
DIARY NO(S). 44021/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO.373/2006;
DIARY NO(S). 44991/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO.373/2006;
DIARY NO(S). 46720/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO.373/2006;
DIARY NO(S). 47720/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO.373/2006;
DIARY NO(S). 2252/2019 IN W.P.(C) NO.373/2006;
R.P.(C) NO. 345/2019 IN W.P.(C) NO. 373/2006
DIARY NO(S). 2998/2019 IN W.P.(C) NO.373/2006;
4
J U D G M E N T
RANJAN GOGOI, CJI.
1. Ordinarily, review petitions ought to proceed on the principle
predicated in Order XLVII in Part IV of the Supreme Court Rules,
2013. However, along with review petitions several fresh writ
petitions have been filed as a fall out of the judgment under review.
All these petitions were heard together in the open Court.
2. The endeavour of the petitioners is to resuscitate the debate
about – what is essentially religious, essential to religion and integral
part of the religion. They would urge that ‘Religion’ is a means to
express ones ‘Faith’. In the Indian context, given the plurality of
religions, languages, cultures and traditions, what is perceived as
faith and essential practices of the religion for a particular deity by a
section of the religious group, may not be so perceived (as an integral
part of the religion) by another section of the same religious group for
the same deity in a temple at another location. Both sections of the
same religious group have a right to freely profess, practise and
propagate their religious beliefs as being integral part of their religion
by virtue of Article 25 of the Constitution of India. It matters not that
they do not constitute a separate religious denomination. Further, as
long as the practice (ostensibly restriction) associated with the
religious belief is not opposed to public order, morality and health or
5
the other provisions of Part III of the Constitution of India, the section
of the religious group is free to profess, practise and propagate the
same as being integral part of their religion. The individual right to
worship in a temple cannot outweigh the rights of the section of the
religious group to which one may belong, to manage its own affairs of
religion. This is broadly what has been contended.
3. Concededly, the debate about the constitutional validity of
practices entailing into restriction of entry of women generally in the
place of worship is not limited to this case, but also arises in respect
of entry of Muslim women in a Durgah/Mosque as also in relation to
Parsi women married to a non-Parsi into the holy fire place of an
Agyari. There is yet another seminal issue pending for consideration
in this Court regarding the powers of the constitutional courts to tread
on question as to whether a particular practice is essential to religion
or is an integral of the religion, in respect of female genital mutilation
in Dawoodi Bohra community.
4. It is time that this Court should evolve a judicial policy befitting
to its plenary powers to do substantial and complete justice and for
an authoritative enunciation of the constitutional principles by a larger
bench of not less than seven judges. The decision of a larger bench
would put at rest recurring issues touching upon the rights flowing
from Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. It is essential to
6
adhere to judicial discipline and propriety when more than one petition
is pending on the same, similar or overlapping issues in the same
court for which all cases must proceed together. Indubitably, decision
by a larger bench will also pave way to instil public confidence and
effectuate the principle underlying Article 145(3) of the Constitution -
which predicates that cases involving a substantial question of law as
to the interpretation of the Constitution should be heard by a bench of
minimum five judges of this Court. Be it noted that this stipulation
came when the strength of the Supreme Court Judges in 1950 was
only seven Judges. The purpose underlying was, obviously, to
ensure that the Supreme Court must rule authoritatively, if not as a
full court (unlike the US Supreme Court). In the context of the present
strength of Judges of the Supreme Court, it may not be inappropriate
if matters involving seminal issues including the interpretation of the
provisions of the Constitution touching upon the right to profess,
practise and propagate its own religion, are heard by larger bench of
commensurate number of Judges. That would ensure an
authoritative pronouncement and also reflect the plurality of views of
the Judges converging into one opinion. That may also ensure
consistency in approach for the posterity.
5. It is our considered view that the issues arising in the pending
cases regarding entry of Muslim Women in Durgah/Mosque (being
7
Writ Petition (Civil) No.472 of 2019); of Parsi Women married to a
non-Parsi in the Agyari (being Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.
18889/2012); and including the practice of female genital mutilation
in Dawoodi Bohra community (being Writ Petition (Civil) No.286 of
2017) may be overlapping and covered by the judgment under review.
The prospect of the issues arising in those cases being referred to
larger bench cannot be ruled out. The said issues could be:
(i) Regarding the interplay between the freedom of religion
under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution and other
provisions in Part III, particularly Article 14.
(ii) What is the sweep of expression ‘public order, morality
and health’ occurring in Article 25(1) of the Constitution.
(iii) The expression ‘morality’ or ‘constitutional morality’ has
not been defined in the Constitution. Is it over arching morality
in reference to preamble or limited to religious beliefs or faith.
There is need to delineate the contours of that expression, lest
it becomes subjective.
(iv) The extent to which the court can enquire into the issue
of a particular practice is an integral part of the religion or
religious practice of a particular religious denomination or
should that be left exclusively to be determined by the head of
the section of the religious group.
8
(v) What is the meaning of the expression ‘sections of
Hindus’ appearing in Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution.
(vi) Whether the “essential religious practices” of a religious
denomination, or even a section thereof are afforded
constitutional protection under Article 26.
(vii) What would be the permissible extent of judicial
recognition to PILs in matters calling into question religious
practices of a denomination or a section thereof at the instance
of persons who do not belong to such religious denomination?
6. In a legal framework where the courts do not have any
epistolary jurisdiction and issues pertaining to religion including
religious practices are decided in exercise of jurisdiction under
Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code or Article 226/32 of the
Constitution the courts should tread cautiously. This is time honoured
principle and practice.
7. In this context, the decision of the Seven Judges bench of this
Court in Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras
vs. Shri Lakshmindra Tirtha Swamiar of Shirur Mutt (Shirur Mutt)
1
holding that what are essential religious practices of a particular
religious denomination should be left to be determined by the
1
(1954) SCR 1005
9
denomination itself and the subsequent view of a Five Judges bench
in Durgah Committee, Ajmer vs. Syed Hussain Ali & Ors.
2
carving
out a role for the court in this regard to exclude what the courts
determine to be secular practices or superstitious beliefs seem to be
in apparent conflict requiring consideration by a larger Bench.
8. While deciding the questions delineated above, the larger
bench may also consider it appropriate to decide all issues, including
the question as to whether the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship
(Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 govern the temple in question at
all. Whether the aforesaid consideration will require grant of a fresh
opportunity to all interested parties may also have to be considered.
9. The subject review petitions as well as the writ petitions may,
accordingly, remain pending until determination of the questions
indicated above by a Larger Bench as may be constituted by the
Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India.
….……......................CJI.
[Ranjan Gogoi]
.…..…….......................J.
[A.M. Khanwilkar]
...……….......................J.
[Indu Malhotra]
New Delhi
November 14, 2019
2
(1962) 1 SCR 383
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL INHERENT/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 3358 OF 2018
IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 373 OF 2006
KANTARU RAJEEVARU ....PETITIONER
VERSUS
INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION
THROUGH ITS GENERAL SECRETARY
MS. BHAKTI PASRIJA & ORS. ….RESPONDENTS
WITH
R. P. (C) NO. 3359 OF 2018 IN W. P.(C) NO. 373 OF 2006
DIARY NO. 37946 OF 2018 IN W. P.(C) NO. 373 OF 2006
R. P. (C) NO. 3469 OF 2018 IN W. P.(C) NO. 373 OF 2006
DIARY NO. 38135 OF 2018 IN W. P.(C) NO. 373 OF 2006
DIARY NO. 38136 OF 2018 IN W. P.(C) NO. 373 OF 2006
R. P. (C) NO. 3449 OF 2018 IN W. P.(C) NO. 373 OF 2006
W. P.(C) NO. 1285 OF 2018
2
R. P. (C) NO. 3470 OF 2018 IN W. P.(C) NO. 373 OF 2006
R. P. (C) NO. 3380 OF 2018 IN W. P.(C) NO. 373 OF 2006
R. P. (C) NO. 3379 OF 2018 IN W. P.(C) NO. 373 OF 2006
R. P. (C) NO. 3444 OF 2018 IN W. P.(C) NO. 373 OF 2006
R. P. (C) NO. 3462 OF 2018 IN W. P.(C) NO. 373 OF 2006
DIARY NO. 38764 OF 2018 IN W. P.(C) NO. 373 OF 2006
DIARY NO. 38769 OF 2018 IN W. P.(C) NO. 373 OF 2006
DIARY NO. 38907 OF 2018 IN W. P.(C) NO. 373 OF 2006
R. P. (C) NO. 3377 OF 2018 IN W. P.(C) NO. 373 OF 2006
DIARY NO. 39023 OF 2018 IN W. P.(C) NO. 373 OF 2006
DIARY NO. 39135 OF 2018 IN W. P.(C) NO. 373 OF 2006
DIARY NO. 39248 OF 2018 IN W. P.(C) NO. 373 OF 2006
DIARY NO. 39258 OF 2018 IN W. P.(C) NO. 373 OF 2006
DIARY NO. 39317 OF 2018 IN W. P.(C) NO. 373 OF 2006
W. P.(C) NO. 1323 OF 2018
W. P.(C) NO. 1305 OF 2018
DIARY NO. 39642 OF 2018 IN W. P.(C) NO. 373 OF 2006
R. P. (C) NO. 3381 OF 2018 IN W. P.(C) NO. 373 OF 2006
DIARY NO. 40056 OF 2018 IN W. P.(C) NO. 373 OF 2006
3
DIARY NO. 40191 OF 2018 IN W. P.(C) NO. 373 OF 2006
DIARY NO. 40405 OF 2018 IN W. P.(C) NO. 373 OF 2006
DIARY NO. 40570 OF 2018 IN W. P.(C) NO. 373 OF 2006
DIARY NO. 40681 OF 2018 IN W. P.(C) NO. 373 OF 2006
DIARY NO. 40713 OF 2018 IN W. P.(C) NO. 373 OF 2006
DIARY NO. 40840 OF 2018 IN W. P.(C) NO. 373 OF 2006
DIARY NO. 40885 OF 2018 IN W. P.(C) NO. 373 OF 2006
DIARY NO. 40887 OF 2018 IN W. P.(C) NO. 373 OF 2006
DIARY NO. 40888 OF 2018 IN W. P.(C) NO. 373 OF 2006
DIARY NO. 40898 OF 2018 IN W. P.(C) NO. 373 OF 2006
R. P. (C) NO. 3457 OF 2018 IN W. P.(C) NO. 373 OF 2006
DIARY NO. 40910 OF 2018 IN W. P.(C) NO. 373 OF 2006
DIARY NO. 40924 OF 2018 IN W. P.(C) NO. 373 OF 2006
DIARY NO. 40929 OF 2018 IN W. P.(C) NO. 373 OF 2006
DIARY NO. 41005 OF 2018 IN W. P.(C) NO. 373 OF 2006
DIARY NO. 41091 OF 2018 IN W. P.(C) NO. 373 OF 2006
W.P.(C) NO. 1339 OF 2018
DIARY NO. 41264 OF 2018 IN W. P.(C) NO. 373 OF 2006
R. P. (C) NO. 3473 OF 2018 IN W. P.(C) NO. 373 OF 2006
DIARY NO. 41395 OF 2018 IN W. P.(C) NO. 373 OF 2006
4
DIARY NO. 41586 OF 2018 IN W. P.(C) NO. 373 OF 2006
R. P. (C) NO. 3480 OF 2018 IN W. P.(C) NO. 373 OF 2006
DIARY NO. 41896 OF 2018 IN W. P.(C) NO. 373 OF 2006
DIARY NO. 42085 OF 2018 IN W. P.(C) NO. 373 OF 2006
DIARY NO. 42264 OF 2018 IN W. P.(C) NO. 373 OF 2006
DIARY NO. 42337 OF 2018 IN W. P.(C) NO. 373 OF 2006
M.A. NO. 3113 OF 2018 IN W. P.(C) NO. 373 OF 2006
DIARY NO. 44021 OF 2018 IN W. P.(C) NO. 373 OF 2006
DIARY NO. 44991 OF 2018 IN W. P.(C) NO. 373 OF 2006
DIARY NO. 46720 OF 2018 IN W. P.(C) NO. 373 OF 2006
DIARY NO. 47720 OF 2018 IN W. P.(C) NO. 373 OF 2006
DIARY NO. 2252 OF 2019 IN W. P.(C) NO. 373 OF 2006
R.P.(C) NO. 345 OF 2019 IN W. P.(C) NO. 373 OF 2006
DIARY NO. 2998 OF 2019 IN W. P.(C) NO. 373 OF 2006
J U D G M E N T
R.F. NARIMAN, J.
1. Having read the judgment of the learned Chief Justice of India, I
regret my inability to agree with the same. The learned Chief Justice has
5
spoken of various matters which are sub judice in this Court in relation
to entry of Muslim women in a dargah/mosque; to Parsi women married
to non-Parsis and their entry into a fire temple; and issues relating to
female genital mutilation in the Dawoodi Bohra community. He has then
outlined seven issues which may be referred to a larger 7-judge bench
as also the apparent conflict between a 7-judge bench in the Shirur
Mutt case 1954 SCR 1005 and the Durgah Committee case, (1962) 1
SCR 383. He then goes on to state, “the prospect of the issues arising
in those cases being referred to a larger bench cannot be ruled out.”
The larger bench may then also consider it appropriate to decide all
issues including the question as to whether the Kerala Hindu Places of
Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules, 1965 governs the temple
in question at all. He then states, “whether the aforesaid consideration
will require grant of a fresh opportunity to all interested parties may also
have to be considered.” Hence the conclusion is that the review petitions
and the fresh writ petitions may remain pending until determination of
the questions indicated above by a larger bench as may be constituted
by the Chief Justice of India in any of the aforesaid pending matters.
6
2. What this Court has before it is review petitions arising out of this
Court’s judgment in Indian Young Lawyers Association and Ors. v.
State of Kerala W.P. (C) No.373 of 2006, which was delivered on 28
September, 2018, with regard to the Sabarimala temple dedicated to
Lord Ayyappa. What a future constitution bench or larger bench, if
constituted by the learned Chief Justice of India, may or may not do
when considering the other issues pending before this Court is, strictly
speaking, not before this Court at all. The only thing that is before this
Court is the review petitions and the writ petitions that have now been
filed in relation to the judgment in Indian Young Lawyers Association
and Ors. v. State of Kerala, dated 28 September, 2018. As and when
the other matters are heard, the bench hearing those matters may well
refer to our judgment in Indian Young Lawyers Association and Ors.
v. State of Kerala, dated 28 September, 2018, and may either apply
such judgment, distinguish such judgment, or refer an issue/issues
which arise from the said judgment for determination by a larger bench.
All this is for future Constitution benches or larger benches to do.
Consequently, if and when the issues that have been set out in the
learned Chief Justice’s judgment arise in future, they can appropriately
be dealt with by the bench/benches which hear the petitions concerning
7
Muslims, Parsis and Dawoodi Bohras. What is before us is only the
narrow question as to whether grounds for review and grounds for filing
of the writ petitions have been made out qua the judgment in Indian
Young Lawyers Association and Ors. v. State of Kerala .
Consequently, this judgment will dispose of the said review petitions and
writ petitions keeping the parameters of judicial intervention in such
cases in mind.
3. A number of points have been urged before us by a large number
of counsel appearing on behalf of the review petitioners. A review
petition that is filed under Article 137 of the Constitution of India, read
with Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, has to be within
certain parameters of a limited jurisdiction which is to be exercised. In a
pithy one-paragraph judgment by Krishna Iyer, J., reported as Sow
Chandra Kante and Ors. v. Sheikh Habib, (1975) 1 SCC 674, this
Court laid down:
“…… A review of a judgment is a serious step and
reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring
omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in
earlier by judicial fallibility. A mere repetition, through
different Counsel, of old and overruled arguments, a
second trip over ineffectually covered ground or minor
mistakes of inconsequential import are obviously
insufficient. The very strict need for compliance with these
8
factors is the rationale behind the insistence of Counsel’s
certificate which should not be a routine affair or a habitual
step. It is neither fairness to the Court which decided nor
awareness of the precious public time lost what with a
huge backlog of dockets waiting in the queue for disposal,
for Counsel to issue easy certificates for entertainment of
review and fight over again the same battle which has
been fought and lost. The Bench and the Bar, we are sure,
are jointly concerned in the conservation of judicial time
for maximum use. We regret to say that this case is typical
of the unfortunate but frequent phenomenon of repeat
performance with the review label as passport. Nothing
which we did not hear then has been heard now, except a
couple of rulings on points earlier put forward. May be, as
Counsel now urges and then pressed, our order refusing
special leave was capable of a different course. The
present stage is not a virgin ground but review of an earlier
order which has the normal feature of finality.”
(at page 675)
4. In Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati (2013) 8 SCC 320, this Court
undertook an exhaustive review of the case law on review petitions and
finally summarised the principles laid down by these judgments as
follows:
“Summary of the principles
20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of
review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:
20.1. When the review will be maintainable:
(i) Discovery of new and important matter or
evidence which, after the exercise of due
diligence, was not within knowledge of the
petitioner or could not be produced by him;
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the
record;
9
(iii) Any other sufficient reason.
The words “any other sufficient reason” have been
interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki [(1921-22) 49 IA 144 :
(1922) 16 LW 37 : AIR 1922 PC 112] and approved by this
Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev.
Mar Poulose Athanasius [AIR 1954 SC 526 : (1955) 1
SCR 520] to mean “a reason sufficient on grounds at least
analogous to those specified in the rule”. The same
principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur
Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. [(2013) 8 SCC 337 : JT
(2013) 8 SC 275]
20.2. When the review will not be maintainable:
(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is
not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.
(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with
the original hearing of the case.
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the
material error, manifest on the face of the order,
undermines its soundness or results in
miscarriage of justice.
(v) A review is by no means an appeal in
disguise whereby an erroneous decision is
reheard and corrected but lies only for patent
error.
(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the
subject cannot be a ground for review.
(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record
should not be an error which has to be fished out
and searched.
(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is
fully within the domain of the appellate court, it
cannot be permitted to be advanced in the
review petition.
(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same
relief sought at the time of arguing the main
matter had been negatived.”
10
5. It is strictly within these parameters that the arguments that have
been made before us have to be judged. Before stating what these
arguments are, it is important to first set down the summary of
conclusions by all the Judges who formed the five-Judge Bench which
delivered the judgment of 28.09.2018. Dipak Misra, C.J., speaking for
himself and for Khanwilkar, J., formulated their conclusions in paragraph
144 of the judgment as follows:
“144. In view of our aforesaid analysis, we record our
conclusions in seriatim:
(i) In view of the law laid down by this Court in Shirur
Mutt [The Commissioner Hindu Religious Endowments,
Madras v. Shri Lakshmindra Thritha Swaminar of Sri
Shirur Mutt, [1954] SCR 1005] and S.P. Mittal [S.P.
Mittal v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 51], the devotees of
Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a separate religious
denomination. They do not have common religious tenets
peculiar to themselves, which they regard as conducive to
their spiritual well-being, other than those which are
common to the Hindu religion. Therefore, the devotees of
Lord Ayyappa are exclusively Hindus and do not
constitute a separate religious denomination.
(ii) Article 25(1), by employing the expression ‘all persons’,
demonstrates that the freedom of conscience and the right
to freely profess, practise and propagate religion is
available, though subject to the restrictions delineated in
Article 25(1) itself, to every person including women. The
right guaranteed under Article 25(1) has nothing to do with
gender or, for that matter, certain physiological factors
specifically attributable to women.
11
(iii) The exclusionary practice being followed at the
Sabrimala temple by virtue of Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules
violates the right of Hindu women to freely practise their
religion and exhibit their devotion towards Lord Ayyappa.
This denial denudes them of their right to worship. The
right to practise religion under Article 25(1) is equally
available to both men and women of all age groups
professing the same religion.
(iv) The impugned Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules, framed
under the 1965 Act, that stipulates exclusion of entry of
women of the age group of 10 to 50 years, is a clear
violation of the right of Hindu women to practise their
religious beliefs which, in consequence, makes their
fundamental right of religion under Article 25(1) a dead
letter.
(v) The term ‘morality’ occurring in Article 25(1) of the
Constitution cannot be viewed with a narrow lens so as to
confine the sphere of definition of morality to what an
individual, a section or religious sect may perceive the
term to mean. Since the Constitution has been adopted
and given by the people of this country to themselves, the
term public morality in Article 25 has to be appositely
understood as being synonymous with constitutional
morality.
(vi) The notions of public order, morality and health cannot
be used as colourable device to restrict the freedom to
freely practise religion and discriminate against women of
the age group of 10 to 50 years by denying them their legal
right to enter and offer their prayers at the Sabarimala
temple.
(vii) The practice of exclusion of women of the age group
of 10 to 50 years being followed at the Sabarimala Temple
cannot be regarded as an essential part as claimed by the
respondent Board.
(viii) In view of the law laid down by this Court in the
second Ananda Marga case, the exclusionary practice
being followed at the Sabarimala Temple cannot be
12
designated as one, the non-observance of which will
change or alter the nature of Hindu religion. Besides, the
exclusionary practice has not been observed with
unhindered continuity as the Devaswom Board had
accepted before the High Court that female worshippers
of the age group of 10 to 50 years used to visit the temple
and conducted poojas in every month for five days for the
first rice feeding ceremony of their children.
(ix) The exclusionary practice, which has been given the
backing of a subordinate legislation in the form of Rule
3(b) of the 1965 Rules, framed by the virtue of the 1965
Act, is neither an essential nor an integral part of the
religion.
(x) A careful reading of Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules makes
it luculent that it is ultra vires both Section 3 as well as
Section 4 of the 1965 Act, for the simon pure reason that
Section 3 being a non-obstante provision clearly stipulates
that every place of public worship shall be open to all
classes and sections of Hindus, women being one of
them, irrespective of any custom or usage to the contrary.
(xi) Rule 3(b) is also ultra vires Section 4 of the 1965 Act
as the proviso to Section 4(1) creates an exception to the
effect that the regulations/rules made under Section 4(1)
shall not discriminate, in any manner whatsoever, against
any Hindu on the ground that he/she belongs to a
particular section or class.
(xii) The language of both the provisions, that is, Section
3 and the proviso to Section 4(1) of the 1965 Act clearly
indicate that custom and usage must make space to the
rights of all sections and classes of Hindus to offer prayers
at places of public worship. Any interpretation to the
contrary would annihilate the purpose of the 1965 Act and
incrementally impair the fundamental right to practise
religion guaranteed under Article 25(1). Therefore, we
hold that Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules is ultra vires the
1965 Act.”
13
6. Nariman, J. concurred with these views, and concluded, in
paragraph 172, that the Ayyappa temple at Sabarimala cannot claim to
be a religious denomination which can then claim the protection of
Article 26 of the Constitution of India as follows:
“172. In these circumstances, we are clearly of the view
that there is no distinctive name given to the worshippers
of this particular temple; there is no common faith in the
sense of a belief common to a particular religion or section
thereof; or common organization of the worshippers of the
Sabarimala temple so as to constitute the said temple into
a religious denomination. Also, there are over a thousand
other Ayyappa temples in which the deity is worshipped
by practicing Hindus of all kinds. It is clear, therefore, that
Article 26 does not get attracted to the facts of this case.”
The learned Judge thereafter concluded as follows:
“177. The facts, as they emerge from the writ petition and
the aforesaid affidavits, are sufficient for us to dispose of
this writ petition on the points raised before us. I,
therefore, concur in the judgment of the learned Chief
Justice of India in allowing the writ petition, and declare
that the custom or usage of prohibiting women between
the ages of 10 to 50 years from entering the Sabarimala
temple is violative of Article 25(1), and violative of the
Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of
Entry) Act, 1965 made under Article 25(2)(b) of the
Constitution. Further, it is also declared that Rule 3(b) of
the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation
of Entry) Rules, 1965 is unconstitutional being violative of
Article 25(1) and Article 15(1) of the Constitution of India.”
14
7. Chandrachud, J. concluded, in paragraph 291, that Article 25 of
the Constitution of India implies equal entitlement of all persons to
profess, practice, and propagate religion, as follows:
“291. The Constitution protects the equal entitlement of all
persons to a freedom of conscience and to freely profess,
protect and propagate religion. Inhering in the right to
religious freedom, is the equal entitlement of all persons,
without exception, to profess, practice and propagate
religion. Equal participation of women in exercising their
right to religious freedom is a recognition of this right. In
protecting religious freedom, the framers subjected the
right to religious freedom to the overriding constitutional
postulates of equality, liberty and personal freedom in Part
III of the Constitution. The dignity of women cannot be
disassociated from the exercise of religious freedom. In
the constitutional order of priorities, the right to religious
freedom is to be exercised in a manner consonant with the
vision underlying the provisions of Part III. The equal
participation of women in worship inheres in the
constitutional vision of a just social order.”
(emphasis in original)
Thereafter, the learned Judge stated his conclusions as follows:
“296. I hold and declare that:
1) The devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not satisfy the
judicially enunciated requirements to constitute a religious
denomination under Article 26 of the Constitution;
2) A claim for the exclusion of women from religious
worship, even if it be founded in religious text, is
subordinate to the constitutional values of liberty, dignity
and equality. Exclusionary practices are contrary to
constitutional morality;
15
3) In any event, the practice of excluding women from the
temple at Sabarimala is not an essential religious practice.
The Court must decline to grant constitutional legitimacy
to practices which derogate from the dignity of women and
to their entitlement to an equal citizenship;
4) The social exclusion of women, based on menstrual
status, is a form of untouchability which is an anathema to
constitutional values. Notions of “purity and pollution”,
which stigmatize individuals, have no place in a
constitutional order;
5) The notifications dated 21 October 1955 and 27
November 1956 issued by the Devaswom Board,
prohibiting the entry of women between the ages of ten
and fifty, are ultra vires Section 3 of the Kerala Hindu
Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act,
1965 and are even otherwise unconstitutional; and
6) Hindu women constitute a ‘section or class’ of Hindus
under clauses (b) and (c) of Section 2 of the 1965 Act.
Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules enforces a custom contrary to
Section 3 of the 1965 Act. This directly offends the right of
temple entry established by Section 3. Rule 3(b) is ultra
vires the 1965 Act.”
8. Indu Malhotra, J. dissented. The summary of her conclusions is
reflected in paragraph 312 of the judgment as follows:
“312. The summary of the aforesaid analysis is as follows:
(i) The Writ Petition does not deserve to be entertained for
want of standing. The grievances raised are non-
justiciable at the behest of the Petitioners and Intervenors
involved herein.
(ii) The equality doctrine enshrined under Article 14 does
not override the Fundamental Right guaranteed by Article
25 to every individual to freely profess, practise and
16
propagate their faith, in accordance with the tenets of their
religion.
(iii) Constitutional Morality in a secular polity would imply
the harmonisation of the Fundamental Rights, which
include the right of every i ndividual, religious
denomination, or sect, to practise their faith and belief in
accordance with the tenets of their religion, irrespective of
whether the practise is rational or logical.
(iv) The Respondents and the Intervenors have made out
a plausible case that the Ayyappans or worshippers of the
Sabarimala Temple satisfy the requirements of being a
religious denomination, or sect thereof, which is entitled to
the protection provided by Article 26. This is a mixed
question of fact and law which ought to be decided before
a competent court of civil jurisdiction.
(v) The limited restriction on the entry of women during the
notified age-group does not fall within the purview of
Article 17 of the Constitution.
(vi) Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules is not ultra vires Section
3 of the 1965 Act, since the proviso carves out an
exception in the case of public worship in a temple for the
benefit of any religious denomination or sect thereof, to
manage their affairs in matters of religion.”
9. What emerges on a reading of the aforesaid four majority
judgments is that there is a clear consensus on the following issues:
9.1. The devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a separate
religious denomination and cannot, therefore, claim the benefit of
Article 26 or the proviso to Section 3 of the Kerala Hindu Places
of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965 [“1965 Act”].
This is outlined in paragraph 144(i) of the judgment of the learned
17
C.J.; paragraph 172 of the judgment of Nariman, J.; and
paragraph 296(1) of the judgment of Chandrachud, J. The
judgment of Malhotra, J. records an opposite tentative conclusion
in paragraph 312(iv).
9.2. The four majority judgments specifically grounded the right
of women between the ages of 10 to 50, who are excluded from
practicing their religion, under Article 25(1) of the Constitution,
emphasizing the expression “all persons” and the expression
“equally” occurring in that Article, so that this right is equally
available to both men and women of all ages professing the same
religion. This proposition becomes clear from paragraph 144(ii)
and (iii) of the judgment of the learned C.J.; from paragraph 174
read with paragraph 177 of the judgment of Nariman, J.; and
paragraph 291 of the judgment of Chandrachud, J. As against
this, the judgment of Malhotra, J. is contained in paragraph
312(ii).
9.3. Section 3 of the 1965 Act traces its origin to Article 25(2)(b)
of the Constitution of India, and would apply notwithstanding any
custom to the contrary, to enable Hindu women the right of entry
18
in all public temples open to Hindus, so that they may exercise
the right of worship therein. As a concomitant thereof, Rule 3(b)
of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of
Entry) Rules, 1965 [“1965 Rules”] is violative of Article 25(1) of
the Constitution of India and ultra vires Section 3 of the 1965 Act.
This proposition flows from paragraph 144(iii), (iv), (x), and (xii)
of the judgment of the learned C.J.; paragraph 177 of the
judgment of Nariman, J.; and paragraph 296(6) of the judgment
of Chandrachud, J. As against this, Malhotra, J. states the
opposite conclusion in paragraph 312(vi) of her judgment.
1
1
In the judgment of the learned Chief Justice, whether the 1965 Rules govern the temple
in question at all is raised, which the larger bench, if constituted, may consider it
appropriate to decide. This is will result in a piecemeal adjudication as a fresh opportunity
to interested parties may then have to be given in the pending review petitions. The
necessity for going into this question in the review petitions filed is itself questionable. On
the assumption that the aforesaid Rule does not apply, the striking down of an
inapplicable rule does not in any manner detract from the ratio of the majority judgment.
The ratio of the majority judgment, insofar as this aspect of the case is concerned, is that
Section 3 of the 1965 Act will apply by reason of the non-obstante clause contained
therein, as a result of which every place of public worship which is open to Hindus or any
section or class thereof is open to all Hindus to worship therein in the like manner and to
the like extent as any other Hindu; and no Hindu of whatsoever section or class shall in
any manner be prevented, obstructed or discouraged from entering any such place of
public worship or from worshipping or offering prayers thereat or performing religious
service therein.
19
10. In Rajnarain Singh v. The Chairman, Patna Administration
Committee, Patna and Ors., (1955) 1 SCR 290, this Court had to
consider the judgment in Re Delhi Laws Act, [1951] SCR 747, in which
seven separate judgments were delivered on the vexed question of the
legislature’s power to delegate essential legislative functions. In
attempting to cull out a common ratio, this Court enunciated a working
test as follows:
“Now what exactly does section 3(1)(f) authorise? After its
amendment it does two things : first, it empowers the
delegated authority to pick any section it chooses out of
the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act of 1922 and extend it
to “Patna”; and second, it empowers the Local
Government (and later the Governor) to apply it with such
“restrictions and modifications” as it thinks fit.
In the Delhi Laws Act case [[1951] S.C.R. 747], the
following provision was held to be good by a majority of
four to three :
“The Provincial Government may …… extend
with such restrictions and modifications as it
thinks fit …… any enactment which is in force in
any part of British India at the date of such
notification.”
Mukherjea and Bose JJ., who swung the balance, held
that not only could an entire enactment with modification
be extended but also a part of one; and indeed that was
the actual decision in Burah’s case [5 I.A. 178], on which
the majority founded : (see Mukherjea J. at page 1000 and
Bose J. at pages 1106 and 1121). But Mukherjea and
Bose JJ., both placed a very restricted meaning on the
words “restriction” and “modification” and, as they swung
the balance, their opinions must be accepted as the
20
decision of the Court because their opinions embody the
greatest common measure of agreement among the
seven Judges.”
(at pp. 302-303)
11. The greatest common measure of agreement among the
majority judgments, being the test enunciated by this decision, is the
three propositions outlined above, to which all the four majority Judges
agree. On whether the exclusion of women from Hindu temples is an
essential part of the Hindu religion, three Judges clearly held that it is
not, with Nariman, J. assuming that such exclusionary practice is an
essential part of the Hindu religion. It is with these prefatory remarks that
we now begin to examine the arguments of counsel for the review
petitioners.
12. Shri K. Parasaran, who led the attack on behalf of the review
petitioners, placed at the forefront of his arguments the judgment of this
Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose
Athanasius, (1955) 1 SCR 520, and relied strongly on the following
passage:
“ …… It does not appear that either of the two majority
Judges of the High Court adverted to either of these
aspects of the matter, namely, service of notice to all
churches and competency of the persons who issued the
notice of the Karingasserai meeting and in any case did
21
not come to a definite finding on that question. The
majority judgments, therefore, are defective on the face of
them in that they did not effectively deal with and
determine an important issue in the case on which
depends the title of the plaintiffs and the maintainability of
the suit. This, in our opinion, is certainly an error apparent
on the face of the record.”
(at page 534)
13. Based on this judgment, Shri Parasan argued that two learned
Judges, viz., Dipak Misra, C.J., and Khanwilkar, J., did not at all opine
on Article 15 of the Constitution of India. Also, they did not effectively
deal with arguments based on Article 17 of the Constitution. The same
goes for Nariman, J., when it comes to Article 17. Chandrachud, J. alone
expounded on Article 17, and according to Shri Parasaran, this
exposition amounts to an error apparent on the face of the record
inasmuch as the expression “untouchability” would refer only to the
discrimination meted out to Harijans, regardless of their sex, and would,
therefore, not embrace members of the female sex alone who are
regarded as “untouchables” during their period of menstruation.
According to him, the judgment of Malhotra, J. correctly referred to the
Constituent Assembly Debates on this issue and arrived at the correct
conclusion. Since the view of Chandrachud, J. cannot be said to be a
possible view, it would amount to an error apparent on the face of the
22
record. Shri Parasaran argued that “untouchability” is nomen juris and
relied upon State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley & Co. (Madras)
Ltd., 1959 SCR 379, which held that the expression “sale of goods”,
being nomen juris, would not include works contracts. He further argued
that it took a constitutional amendment to add Article 366(29-A) to
expand the definition of “sale of goods” so as to include a works
contract.
14. The majority judgments of Dipak Misra, C.J., Khanwilkar, J., and
Nariman, J. did not find it necessary to opine on Article 15(2) and Article
17 of the Constitution in view of their findings on various other points.
Nariman, J. alone referred to Article 15(1) of the Constitution when it
came to striking down Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules. The observations of
Chandrachud, J. on Article 17 of the Constitution cannot be said to be a
material error manifest on the face of the record which undermines the
soundness of the three conclusions reached by all the majority
judgments supra. Further, since the view of Chandrachud, J. on Article
17 of the Constitution is a possible view, it cannot be a subject matter of
review. As stated hereinabove, the interpretation of Article 15 and Article
17 of the Constitution were not treated as central issues in the present
23
case by at least three learned Judges, namely, Dipak Misra, C.J.,
Khanwilkar, J., and Nariman, J. In this view of the matter, these
arguments have necessarily to be rejected.
15. Other learned counsel have essentially reargued the case on all
other points. They argued that the Ayyappa temple at Sabarimala
constituted a religious denomination and could, therefore, claim the
protection of Article 26 of the Constitution of India as well as the proviso
to Section 3 of the 1965 Act. This argument is a re-argument of what
was argued before us before the judgment of 28.09.2018 was delivered.
16. Ms. Indira Jaising, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf
of the intervenors in I.A. Nos. 21515 and 21521 of 2019, specifically
referred to and relied upon the judgment of one of us, Nariman, J.,
where it was made clear that the judgment of Chinnappa Reddy, J. in
S.P. Mittal v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 51, was a dissenting
judgment [see paragraph 171]. According to her, in two places, the
dissenting judgment of Malhotra, J. has strongly relied upon the
judgment of Chinnappa Reddy, J. (in paragraphs 306.7 and 308.8),
stating that the judgment of Chinnappa Reddy, J. is a concurring
judgment on the aspect of religious denomination. Therefore, on the
24
contrary, the conclusion of Malhotra, J., based on the observations
contained in the dissenting judgment of Chinnappa Reddy, J., could not
be said to be a possible view on this aspect. Without entering further
into this controversy, we may only reiterate that the majority Judges
have correctly held that the views of Chinnappa Reddy, J. are
dissentient, as was recognized by Chinnappa Reddy, J. himself. The
learned Judge in his first paragraph states:
“I have the good fortune of having before me the scholarly
judgment of my brother Misra, J. I agree with my brother
Misra, J. that the writ petitions must fail. With much that
he has said, also, I agree. But with a little, to my own
lasting regret, I do not agree. It is, therefore, proper for me
to explain the points of my disagreement.”
(at page 59)
17. The majority view of four Judges on this aspect is contained in
paragraphs 110 to 122. In paragraphs 121 and 122, the majority
concluded as follows:
“121. On the basis of the materials placed before us viz.
the Memorandum of Association of the Society, the
several applications made by the Society claiming
exemption under Section 35 and Section 80 of the Income
Tax Act, the repeated utterings of Sri Aurobindo and the
Mother that the Society and Auroville were not religious
institutions and host of other documents there is no room
for doubt that neither the Society nor Auroville constitute
a religious denomination and the teachings of Sri
Aurobindo only represented his philosophy and not a
religion.
25
122. Even assuming but not holding that the Society or the
Auroville were a religious denomination, the impugned
enactment is not hit by Articles 25 or 26 of the
Constitution. The impugned enactment does not curtail
the freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess,
practise and propagate religion. Therefore, there is no
question of the enactment being hit by Article 25.”
This point also has to be rejected as there is no error, let alone material
error, manifest on the face of the record of the majority view.
18. A great deal of argument was devoted to whether the practice of
excluding women between the ages of 10 to 50 from the shrine at
Sabarimala would constitute an essential religious practice. Three of the
majority Judges held that such a religious practice, having no basis in
the Hindu religion, could not be held to be an essential religious practice
– see paragraphs 122 and 123 of the judgment of the learned C.J., and
paragraph 227 read with paragraph 296(3) of the judgment of
Chandrachud, J. Here again, it cannot be said that there is any error
apparent. What has to be seen in the judgments of this Court is whether
such practice is an essential practice relatable to the Hindu religion, and
not the practice of one particular temple. Nothing has been shown to us,
as was correctly pointed out by the learned Chief Justice, from any
textual or other authorities, to show that exclusion of women from ages
26
10 to 50 from Hindu temples is an essential part of the Hindu religion.
This again is a ground that must be rejected, both because there is no
error apparent, and because the same ground that was argued in
extenso before the original judgment was delivered, is being reargued
in review.
19. It was then stated that the judgments of Dipak Misra, C.J. and
Chandrachud, J., in relying upon “constitutional morality”, suffered from
an error apparent, in that constitutional morality is a vague concept
which cannot be utilised to undermine belief and faith. Here again, apart
from the fact that “constitutional morality” has now reached the level of
stare decisis, and has been explained in several Constitution Bench
judgments, reliance thereon cannot be said to suffer from any error
apparent. Constitutional law and constitutional interpretation stand on a
different footing from interpretation of statutes. Constitutional law keeps
evolving keeping in view, among other things, the felt necessities of the
time. As has been explained in some of our judgments, “constitutional
morality” is nothing but the values inculcated by the Constitution, which
are contained in the Preamble read with various other parts, in
particular, Parts III and IV thereof. This again is a mere rehash of what
27
was argued earlier, and can by no means be said to be an error apparent
on the face of the record.
20. Extreme arguments were made by some learned counsel stating
that belief and faith are not judicially reviewable by courts, and that this
Court cannot interfere by stating that a particular section of persons shall
not hold a particular belief and act in accordance thereto. Such
arguments need to be rejected out of hand. Not only do they not
constitute “errors apparent”, but are arguments that fly in the face of
Article 25. Article 25, as has been held by the majority judgments, is not
an Article that gives a carte blanche to one particular section of persons
to trample upon the right of belief and worship of another section of
persons belonging to the same religion. The delicate balance between
the exercise of religious rights by different groups within the same
religious faith that is found in Article 25 has to be determined on a case
by case basis. The slippery-slope argument, that this judgment will be
used to undermine the religious rights of others, including religious
minorities, is wholly without basis. The ratio of the majority judgments in
this case is only that the exclusionary practice of keeping women from
the ages of 10 to 50 from exercising their right of worship in a particular
28
Hindu temple falls foul of Article 25 of the Constitution of India inasmuch
as (i) all persons are equally entitled, when they belong to the same
religious group, to exercise their fundamental right of practicing religion;
and (ii) that this is a case covered by Article 25(2)(b), which deals with
throwing open all Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all
classes and sections of Hindus. The majority judgments have held that
Section 3 of the 1965 Act is a legislation in pursuance of this part of
Article 25(2)(b), which expressly comes in the way of any custom which
interferes with the rights of women from the ages of 10 to 50 from
worshipping in a Hindu religious institution of a public character. Article
25(1) also contains two other exceptions, namely, that this right is (a)
subject to public order, morality, and health; and (b) is also subject to
the other provisions of Part III, as has been explained in the majority
judgments. This argument must also, therefore, be rejected.
21. References were made to the Hindi text of Article 26, and
arguments were based on the Hindi expression “sampradaya” as
opposed to the English expression “denomination”. This again is a new
argument, made for the first time in review. This argument cannot be
countenanced for the reason that we are bound by a large number of
29
Constitution Bench decisions on what constitutes a religious
denomination. Having followed the aforesaid judgments, which are
binding upon us, we cannot be said to have committed any error.
22. Emotive arguments were made on how women between the
ages of 10 to 50 are not kept out on account of menstruation as a
polluting agent, but on account of the deity being a Naisthik
Brahmachari, who would be disturbed by the presence of women
between the ages of 10 to 50, as the deity has undertaken a vow of
celibacy. These are all arguments that have been made at the initial
stage, and are fully dealt with by all the judgments. Re-arguing this
aspect of the matter obviously does not fall within the parameters of a
review petition.
23. One more extreme argument that was made is that since
worshippers from all faiths come to Sabarimala, Sabarimala cannot be
held to be a Hindu temple. This argument, again, has no legs to stand
on. A Christian church cannot be said to be any the less a church on
account of allowing persons of all faiths to enter and worship therein.
There is no doubt that the temple at Sabarimala, being dedicated to a
Hindu idol – Lord Ayyappa – is a Hindu public religious institution, like
30
the other temples dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, which are undoubtedly
Hindu public religious institutions. This argument must also be rejected.
24. An argument was made that there are gender restrictions in other
places of worship, which, being essential religious practices, have not
been interfered with. This is a general argument which needs to be
rejected on the ground of vagueness, apart from the fact that this is not
an argument which could be made in review. As and when such gender
restrictions in other places of worship are tested, they will be decided on
their own merits keeping in view the provisions of the Constitution.
25. Another plea of some of the review petitioners is that the Division
Bench judgment in S. Mahendran v. Secretary, Travancore
Devaswom Board, Thiruvananthapuram, AIR 1993 Ker 42 would be
res judicata, as it was a Public Interest Litigation in which all necessary
parties were joined and heard, and the same issues that were raised
before this Court were decided by the Division Bench.
26. It is true that the Division Bench judgment in Mahendran (supra),
was a complaint which was converted into an original petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution as a PIL. The Secretary, Travancore
Devaswom Board, and the Chief Secretary to the Government of Kerala
31
were made respondents to the petition. Further, the Indian Federation
of Women Lawyers, Kerala Branch and the President of the Kerala
Kshetra Samrakshana Samithi were impleaded and permitted to
participate in the proceedings. As a matter of law, there is no doubt
whatsoever that res judicata as a principle does apply to public interest
litigation. However, this Court in V. Purushotham Rao v. Union of
India & Ors., (2001) 10 SCC 305, set out the law as stated in Rural
Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P., 1989 Supp. (1)
SCC 504, which it followed, and stated:
“We may not be taken to have said that for public interest
litigations, procedural laws do not apply. At the same time
it has to be remembered that every technicality in the
procedural law is not available as a defence when a
matter of grave public importance is for consideration
before the Court. Even if it is said that there was a final
order, in a dispute of this type it would be difficult to
entertain the plea of res judicata.
Thus even in the selfsame proceeding, the earlier order
though final, was treated not to create a bar inasmuch as
the controversy before the Court was of grave public
interest. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants
drew our attention to the decision of this Court in the case
of Forward Construction Co. v. Prabhat Mandal, AIR
1986 SC 391, whereunder the Court did record a
conclusion that Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code
applied to public interest litigation. In our considered
opinion, therefore, the principle of constructive res
judicata cannot be made applicable in each and every
32
public interest litigation, irrespective of the nature of
litigation itself and its impact on the society and the larger
public interest which is being served.”
(at page 331)
This Court, in Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal & Ors. v. Dossibai N.B.
Jeejeebhoy, (1970) 3 S.C.R. 830, [“Mathura Prasad”], had held:
“Where, however, the question is one purely of law and it
relates to the jurisdiction of the Court or a decision of the
Court sanctioning something which is illegal, by resort to
the rule of res judicata a party affected by the decision will
not be precluded from challenging the validity of that order
under the rule of res judicata, for a rule of procedure
cannot supersede the law of the land.”
(at page 836)
In a recent judgment, namely, Canara Bank v. N.G. Subbaraya Setty
& Anr., AIR 2018 SC 3395, this Court after referring to Mathura Prasad
(supra), held:
“(ii) An issue of law which arises between the same
parties in a subsequent suit or proceeding is not res
judicata if, by an erroneous decision given on a statutory
prohibition in the former suit or proceeding, the statutory
prohibition is not given effect to. This is despite the fact
that the matter in issue between the parties may be the
same as that directly and substantially in issue in the
previous suit or proceeding. This is for the reason that in
such cases, the rights of the parties are not the only matter
for consideration (as is the case of an erroneous
interpretation of a statute inter parties), as the public policy
contained in the statutory prohibition cannot be set at
naught. This is for the same reason as that contained in
33
matters which pertain to issues of law that raise
jurisdictional questions. We have seen how, in Natraj
Studios (AIR 1981 SC 537), it is the public policy of the
statutory prohibition contained in Section 28 of the
Bombay Rent Act that has to be given effect to. Likewise,
the public policy contained in other statutory prohibitions,
which need not necessarily go to jurisdiction of a Court,
must equally be given effect to, as otherwise special
principles of law are fastened upon parties when special
considerations relating to public policy mandate that this
cannot be done.”
(at page 3414)
27. When it comes to important issues as to the interpretation of the
Constitution, which is entrusted by the Constitution under Article 145(3)
to a Bench consisting of a minimum of five Supreme Court Judges, it is
obvious that an erroneous interpretation of the Constitution by a High
Court (which affects the general public much more than an erroneous
interpretation of a statutory prohibition enacted in public interest) cannot
possibly be res judicata as against a judgment of a Constitution Bench
of the Supreme Court, as a rule of procedure cannot be exalted over
Article 145(3) of the Constitution of India. By the judgment dated
28.09.2018 of a Constitution Bench of this Court, this Court has
interpreted Article 25(1) to mean that all persons are equally entitled to
practice the Hindu religion, which would include women between the
ages of 10 and 50. A previous decision by a High Court, erroneously
34
interpreting Article 25 in an earlier PIL, can obviously not stand in the
way, by resort to a rule of procedure, of a judgment of five Judges of the
Supreme Court declaring the law of the land on this aspect. This
objection also does not disclose any error apparent on the face of the
record.
28. The issue of locus-standi to file a public-interest litigation was re-
argued by some of the review petitioners. Indu Malhotra, J. in her
dissenting judgment, has held that to entertain a public-interest litigation
at the behest of persons who are not worshippers at Sabrimala temple
would open the floodgates of petitions to be filed questioning the validity
of religious beliefs and practices followed by other religious sects. We
have pointed out in this judgment that the majority judgment cannot be
used to undermine the religious rights of others, including, in particular,
religious minorities. Besides, busybodies, religious fanatics, cranks and
persons with vested interests will be turned down by the Court at the
threshold itself, by applying the parameters laid down in State of
Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal and Ors. (2010) 3 SCC 402 (at
paragraph 181). The fear expressed by the learned dissenting judge is
therefore quite unfounded. As has been pointed by Nariman, J. in the
35
majority judgment (at paragraph 175), the present case raises grave
issues which relate to gender bias on account of a physiological or
biological function which is common to all women. It is for this reason
that a bonafide public-interest litigation was entertained by the majority
judgment, having regard to women’s rights, in the context of women
worshippers as a class, being excluded on account of such
physiological/biological functions for the entirety of the period during
which a woman enters puberty until menopause sets in.
29. Given the consensus on the three issues delineated above by
the four majority judgments, we find that no ground for review of the
majority judgments has been made out. The review petitions are hence
dismissed. Equally, all writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the
Constitution, that have been filed directly attacking the majority
judgments dated 28.09.2018, are dismissed as not being maintainable
in view of Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, (1966)
3 SCR 744, as followed in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, (2002)
4 SCC 388 [see paragraphs 7 to 14].
30. An argument was made by some of the review petitioners that,
given the fact that there have been mass protests against
36
implementation of this judgment, we ought to have a re-look at the entire
problem. On the other hand, Ms. Indira Jaising, learned Senior Advocate
appearing on behalf of certain ladies, including Scheduled Caste ladies
who have been obstructed from entering the Sabarimala temple, or
having entered the temple, have been subjected to physical and other
abuses, has made a fervent plea before us to ensure that our judgment
is implemented in both letter and in spirit.
31. The arguments and counter-arguments so made, need us to
restate a few constitutional fundamentals. Under our constitutional
scheme, the Supreme Court is given a certain pride of place. Under
Article 129, the Supreme Court shall be a court of record and shall have
all the powers of such a Court, including the power to punish for
contempt of itself. Under Article 136, the Supreme Court has been
granted a vast jurisdiction by which it may interfere with any judgment,
decree, determination, sentence, or order made by any court or tribunal
in the territory of India. Indeed, by Article 140, Parliamentary law may
confer upon the Supreme Court such supplemental powers as may be
necessary or desirable for the purpose of enabling the Court to exercise
the jurisdiction conferred upon it by the Constitution more effectively. By
37
Article 141 of the Constitution, the law declared by the Supreme Court
shall be binding on all courts, which includes tribunals, within the
territory of India, which ensures that the Supreme Court, being the final
arbiter of disputes, will lay down law which will then be followed as a
precedent by all courts and tribunals within the territory of India. Article
142 of the Constitution confers upon the Supreme Court the power to
make such decree or order as is necessary for doing complete justice
in any cause or matter pending before it. By Article 145(3), a minimum
number of five Judges are the last word on the interpretation of the
Constitution, as any case involving a substantial question of law as to
interpretation of the Constitution must be decided by this minimum
number of Judges.
32. What is of particular importance in this case is Article 144 of the
Constitution of India, which is set out hereinbelow:
“144. Civil and judicial authorities to act in aid of the
Supreme Court.—All authorities, civil and judicial, in the
territory of India shall act in aid of the Supreme Court.”
At this juncture, it is important to understand the true reach of Article 144
of the Constitution of India. What is of great importance is that it is not
judicial authorities alone that are to act in aid of the Supreme Court – it
38
is all authorities i.e. authorities that are judicial as well as authorities that
are non-judicial. The expression “civil” is an expression of extremely
wide import, and deals with anything that affects the rights of a citizen.
Therefore, even textually, all “authorities” which exercise powers over
the citizens in the territory of India are mandated to act in aid of the
Supreme Court.
33. The expression “authority” is not defined by the Constitution of
India. However, it is used in several Articles of the Constitution of India.
Depending upon the context in which it is used, the expression is used
either in a wide or narrow sense. Examples of the expression being used
in a narrow sense are as follows:
Article 73(2) of the Constitution states:
“73. Extent of executive power of the Union.—
xxx xxx xxx
(2) Until otherwise provided by Parliament, a State and
any officer or authority of a State may, notwithstanding
anything in this article, continue to exercise in matters with
respect to which Parliament has power to make laws for
that State such executive power or functions as the State
or officer or authority thereof could exercise immediately
before the commencement of this Constitution.”
39
As can be seen from this Article, here, an authority is only of a State,
when contrasted with authorities of the Union Government. Similarly,
the converse case is referred to in the proviso to Article 162 as follows:
“162. Extent of executive power of State.—Subject to
the provisions of this Constitution, the executive power of
a State shall extend to the matters with respect to which
the Legislature of the State has power to make laws:
Provided that in any matter with respect to which the
Legislature of a State and Parliament have power to make
laws, the executive power of the State shall be subject to,
and limited by, the executive power expressly conferred
by this Constitution or by any law made by Parliament
upon the Union or authorities thereof.”
34. The proviso speaks of authorities of the Union of India. Likewise,
Article 258(2) refers to authorities of the State when contrasted with the
authorities of the Union Government. Article 277 refers to local
authorities which would have reference to municipalities, panchayats,
etc. Article 307 refers to an authority set up by Parliament to carry out
the purposes of Articles 301 to 304, which speak of trade, commerce
and intercourse within the territory of India, and consequently, deal with
the economic unity of the nation. Article 329(b) speaks of a quasi-judicial
authority before which an election petition may be presented. Article
353(b) and Article 357(1)(b) speak of authorities of the Union, as
40
contradistinguished with authorities of the State. Article 356(1)(a)
speaks of State authorities, when contradistinguished with Union
authorities. Article 372(1) has reference to a “competent authority”,
being an authority which is competent to amend laws that are in force in
the territory of India immediately before the commencement of the
Constitution.
35. As against these Articles, other Articles speak of “authority” in a
wide sense. Thus, under Article 12, when it comes to enforcing
fundamental rights against a State, “local or other authorities” has been
held to include all State instrumentalities, including government
companies and cooperative societies, in which the State has a voice.
As far back as in 1967, in Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan
Lal, (1967) 3 SCR 377, the expression “other authorities” was held not
to be construed as ejusdem generis with the preceding word, “local”.
Likewise, in Article 154(2)(a), the expression “any other authority” is
used; and in Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when the High Court
exercises its writ jurisdiction, it may do so against any person or
authority.
41
36. A conspectus of the aforesaid Articles of the Constitution of India
leads to the conclusion that the expression “authorities” in Article 144 is
to be given the widest possible meaning.
37. In Supreme Court Bar Assn. v. Union of India, 1998 (4) SCC
409, this Court held that the Bar Council of India or the Bar Council of a
State would be covered, being an “authority” for the purposes of Article
144, as it is a body created by statute, which performs a public duty [see
paragraph 79].
38. Likewise, any authority that exhibits a defiant attitude to any
order of the Supreme Court has been castigated as being wholly
objectionable and not acceptable. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India,
(2001) 3 SCC 763, this Court stated as follows:
“11. We are distressed at certain reports which have
appeared in the print and electronic media, exhibiting
defiant attitude on the part of Delhi Administration to
comply with our orders. The attitude, as reflected in the
newspapers/electronic media, if correct, is wholly
objectionable and not acceptable. We have no doubt that
all those concerned with Delhi Administration are aware
of the provisions of Article 144 of the Constitution which
reads,
“144. Civil and judicial authorities to act in aid of
the Supreme Court.—All authorities, civil and
judicial, in the territory of India shall act in aid of
the Supreme Court.”
42
as also of the consequence of deliberately flouting the
orders of this Court and non-compliance with the above
constitutional provision…”
39. This Court, in State of Tamil Nadu v. State of Karnataka,
(2016) 10 SCC 617, has castigated the State of Karnataka as follows:
“74. At this juncture, we may refer to Article 144 of the
Constitution of India. It reads as follows:
“144. Civil and judicial authorities to act in aid
of the Supreme Court.—All authorities, civil and
judicial, in the territory of India, shall act in aid of
the Supreme Court.”
75. On a plain reading of the said Article 144, it is clear as
crystal that all authorities in the territory of India are bound
to act in aid of the Supreme Court. Needless to say, they
are bound to obey the orders of the Supreme Court and
also, if required, render assistance and aid for
implementation of the order(s) of this Court, but,
unfortunately, the State of Karnataka is flouting the order
and, in fact, creating a situation where the majesty of law
is dented. We would have proceeded to have taken steps
for strict compliance with our order, but as we are directing
the Cauvery Management Board to study the ground
reality and give us a report forthwith, we reiterate our
earlier direction that the State of Karnataka shall release
6000 cusecs of water from 1-10-2016 till 6-10-2016. We
are granting this opportunity as the last chance and we
repeat at the cost of repetition that we are passing this
order despite the resolution passed by the Joint Houses
of State Legislature of the State of Karnataka. We had
clearly mentioned so in our earlier order, while we stated
Annexure IV to IA No. 16 of 2016. We are sure that the
State of Karnataka being a part of the federal structure of
this country will rise to the occasion and not show any kind
of deviancy and follow the direction till the report on the
ground reality is made available to this Court.”
43
40. The position under our constitutional scheme is that the Supreme
Court of India is the ultimate repository of interpretation of the
Constitution. Once a Constitution Bench of five learned Judges
interprets the Constitution and lays down the law, the said interpretation
is binding not only as a precedent on all courts and tribunals, but also
on the coordinate branches of Government, namely, the legislature and
the executive. What follows from this is that once a judgment is
pronounced by the Constitution Bench and a decree on facts follows,
the said decree must be obeyed by all persons bound by it. In addition,
Article 144 of the Constitution mandates that all persons who exercise
powers over the citizenry of India are obliged to aid in enforcing orders
and decrees of the Supreme Court. This then is the constitutional
scheme by which we are governed – the rule of law, as laid down by the
Indian Constitution.
41. Looked at from another angle, every member of the executive
Government i.e. every Central Minister, including the Prime Minister, as
well as every State Minister, including the Chief Ministers in the various
States are bound vide Article 75(4) and Article 164(3), read with the
44
Third Schedule, to uphold and defend the Constitution. Thus, insofar as
Ministers belonging to the Centre are concerned, Article 75(4) states:
“75. Other provisions as to Ministers.—
xxx xxx xxx
(4) Before a Minister enters upon his office, the President
shall administer to him the oaths of office and of secrecy
according to the forms set out for the purpose in the Third
Schedule.
xxx xxx xxx”
The Third Schedule of the Constitution insofar it applies to such
Ministers reads as follows:
“THIRD SCHEDULE
Articles 75(4), 99, 124(6), 148(2), 164(3), 188 and 219
FORMS OF OATHS OR AFFIRMATIONS
I
Form of oath of office for a Minister for the Union:—
swear in the name of God
“I, A.B., do ----------------------------------------------- that I will
solemnly affirm
bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India
as by law established, that I will uphold the sovereignty
and integrity of India, that I will faithfully and
conscientiously discharge my duties as a Minister for the
Union and that I will do right to all manner of people in
accordance with the Constitution and the law, without fear
or favour, affection or ill-will.”
45
42. Insofar as their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of
India is concerned, the Chief Ministers of the several States, together
with Ministers of their cabinets, are bound by Article 164(3), read with
the Third Schedule, to uphold and defend the Constitution in the
following terms:
“164. Other provisions as to Ministers.—
xxx xxx xxx
(3) Before a Minister enters upon his office, the Governor
shall administer to him the oaths of office and of secrecy
according to the forms set out for the purpose in the Third
Schedule.
xxx xxx xxx”
“THIRD SCHEDULE
xxx xxx xxx
V
Form of oath of office for a Minister for a State:—
swear in the name of God
“I, A.B., do ----------------------------------------------- that I will
solemnly affirm
bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India
as by law established, that I will uphold the sovereignty
and integrity of India, that I will faithfully and
conscientiously discharge my duties as a Minister for the
State of………….and that I will do right to all manner of
people in accordance with the Constitution and the law
without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.”
46
43. Insofar as the Members of Parliament are concerned, i.e., the
Members of both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, Article 99, read
with the Third Schedule, is as follows:
“99. Oath or affirmation by members.—Every member
of either House of Parliament shall, before taking his seat,
make and subscribe before the President, or some person
appointed in that behalf by him, an oath or affirmation
according to the form set out for the purpose in the Third
Schedule.”
“THIRD SCHEDULE
xxx xxx xxx
III
B
Form of oath or affirmation to be made by a member of
Parliament:—
‘I, A.B., having been elected (or nominated) a member of
the Council of States (or the House of the People)
swear in the name of God
do --------------------------------------------- that I will bear true
solemnly affirm
faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law
established, that I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity
of India and that I will faithfully discharge the duty upon
which I am about to enter.”
47
44. Insofar as the Members of State Legislative Assemblies and
Councils are concerned, Article 188, read with the Third Schedule, is as
follows:
“188. Oath or affirmation by members.—Every member
of the Legislative Assembly or the Legislative Council of a
State shall, before taking his seat, make and subscribe
before the Governor, or some person appointed in that
behalf by him, an oath or affirmation according to the form
set out for the purpose in the Third Schedule.”
“THIRD SCHEDULE
xxx xxx xxx
VII
B
Form of oath or affirmation to be made by a member of
the Legislature of a State:—
“I, A.B., having been elected (or nominated) a member
of the Legislative Assembly (or Legislative
swear in the name of God
Council), do -------------------------------------------- that I will
solemnly affirm
bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India
as by law established, that I will uphold the sovereignty
and integrity of India and that I will faithfully discharge the
duty upon which I am about to enter.”
45. It is important to notice, at this juncture, that so far as the Prime
Minister and members of his Cabinet are concerned, not only does the
48
form of oath contained in the Third Schedule require that all such
persons will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as
by law established, but also that they will do right to all manner of people,
in accordance with the Constitution and the law, without fear or favour,
affection or ill will. The same goes for the oath taken by the Chief
Ministers and Ministers within the States. Read with Article 144, this
would mean that it is the bounden duty of every Minister, whether
Central or State, to follow Article 144 in letter as well as spirit, and to do
what is right to all manner of people, in accordance with the Constitution
and the law, which means in accordance with the interpretation of the
Constitution declared by the law laid down by the Supreme Court. It is,
therefore, incumbent upon the executive branch of Government and all
MPs and MLAs to faithfully aid in carrying out decrees and orders
passed by the Supreme Court of India when such decrees and orders
command a particular form of obedience, even where they are not
parties to the litigation before the Supreme Court. Any deviation from
this high constitutional principle is in derogation of the oath taken by
every Minister and Legislator during his term of office. Once this is
clearly understood and followed, the rule of law is established, and the
shameful spectacle of political parties running after votes, or instigating
49
or tolerating mob violence, in defiance of decrees or orders passed by
the Supreme Court of India does not reign instead.
46. The history of democratic nations shows that what our founding
fathers handed to us in the form of the Constitution of India was the
result of centuries of struggle in both England and the United States of
America. The bloody revolutions that took place in France and Russia
against absolute monarchs are a sober reminder to the people of the
world that social transformation, which took place cataclysmically in
rivers of human blood, is to be eschewed. An absolute monarch like
Peter the Great of Russia, could order, by decree, that no adult male
shall, in the future, have a beard. This was done as part of a move to
bring Russia out of the middle ages and in line with other advanced
European nations. For most Orthodox Russians, the beard was a
fundamental symbol of religious belief and self-respect. It was an
ornament given by God, worn by the prophets, the apostles and by
Jesus himself. Ivan the Terrible expressed the traditional Muscovite
feeling when he declared, “to shave the beard is a sin that the blood of
all the martyrs cannot cleanse. It is to deface the image of man created
by God.” This decree was carried out overnight, with Russian officialdom
50
being armed with razors with which they were to shave, on the spot,
those unfortunate wretches who had not obeyed the decree. Eventually
those who insisted on keeping their beards were permitted to do so on
paying an annual tax. Payment entitled the owner to a small bronze
medallion with a picture of a beard on it and the words “TAX PAID”, which
was worn on a chain around the neck to prove to any challengers that
his beard was legal. The tax was graduated; peasants paid only two
kopeks a year, wealthy merchants paid as much as a hundred roubles.
2
It is in the wake of such tumultuous events in history, that the great
democratic constitutions of the world have been promulgated, so that
social transformation takes place peaceably, as the result of the
application of the rule of law.
47. The expression “rule of law” can be traced back to the great
Greek philosopher Aristotle, who lived 2,400 years ago. In his book on
the ‘Rule of Law’ by Brian Z. Tamanaha, Aristotle is reported to have
said:
“It is better for the law to rule than one of the citizens…so
that even the guardians of the law are obeying the laws.”
2
ROBERT K. MASSIE, PETER THE GREAT: HIS LIFE AND WORLD, 234-235 (Ballantine Books
1980).
51
48. John Locke had stated, in 1690, in his Second Treatise of
Government, Chapter XVII, page 400, that, “wherever law ends, tyranny
begins”.
49. In the year of the American Declaration of Independence, i.e.
1776, Thomas Paine, in his book, “Common Sense”, at page 34, stated:
“…In America the law is king. For as in absolute
governments the King is law, so in free countries the law
ought to be king; and there ought to be no other.”
50. Prof. A.V. Dicey, the Vinerian Professor of English Law at the
University of Oxford, in his book, “An Introduction to the Study of the
Law of the Constitution”, published in 1885, gave three meanings to the
rule of law. We are directly concerned with the second meaning that was
thus given. He stated,
“We mean in the second place, when we speak of the “rule
of law” as a characteristic of our country, not only that with
us no man is above the law, but (what is a different thing)
that here every man, whatever be his rank or condition, is
subject to the ordinary law of the realm and amenable to
the jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals.”
(at page 193)
52
51. The rule of law was first established against absolutist monarchs.
Thus, in the Magna Carta, which was signed by King John of England
on 15 June, 1215, it was stated:
“39. No free man shall be seized or imprisoned or
stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or
exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor
will we proceed with force against him, or send others to
do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by
the law of the land.
40. To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right
or justice.”
52. Despite the fact that Pope Innocent III, by a papal bull, in August
of that year, annulled the Magna Carta, the Magna Carta was repeatedly
affirmed by English monarchs. Copies of it were printed and distributed
both in the time of Henry III, i.e., the son of King John, and Edward I,
King John’s grandson.
53. The next important landmark in English Law, so far as the rule of
law is concerned, is the famous Petition of Right
3
of 1628, in clause VIII
of which, it was stated:
3
This Petition of Right was signed by King Charles I, who was one of the Stuart Kings of
England, who believed that he governed the realm by divine right. His father, King James
I’s Chief Justice, Lord Edward Coke, stated a fundamental of the British Constitution when
he said to his King that, “Bracton saith, quod Rex non debet esse sub-homine set sub
Deo et lege”, i.e., the King ought not to be under any man, but under God and the law.
53
“They do therefore humbly pray your most excellent
majesty that no man hereafter be compelled to make or
yield any gift, loan, benevolence, tax or such like charge
without common consent by act of parliament, and that
none be called to make answer or take such oath or to
give attendance or be confined or otherwise molested or
disquieted concerning the same or for refusal thereof. And
that no freeman in any such manner as is before
mentioned be imprisoned or detained. And that your
Majesty would be pleased to remove the said soldiers and
mariners, and that your people may not be so burdened in
time to come. And that the aforesaid commissions for
proceeding by martial law may be revoked and annulled.
And that hereafter no commissions of like nature may
issue forth to any person or persons whatsoever to be
executed as aforesaid, lest by colour of them any of your
Majesty’s subjects be destroyed or put to death contrary
to the laws and franchises of the land.”
54. The next great landmark establishing the rule of law in England
was the Bill of Rights, 1689, under which no monarch could rely on
divine authority to override the law. The authority and independence of
Parliament was proclaimed, and the power to suspend laws without the
consent of Parliament was condemned as illegal. Personal liberty and
security were protected by prohibiting the requirement of excessive
fines, the imposition of excessive bail, and the infliction of cruel and
unusual punishments.
54
55. In the United States, the rule of law was established by the
Constitution of the United States, 1789. In particular, Article VI of the
U.S. Constitution states:
“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which
shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made,
or which shall be made, under the authority of the United
States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the
judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in
the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary
notwithstanding.”
56. When it came to the judicial branch of Government, Alexander
Hamilton, in Federalist Paper No.78, had this to say:
“Whoever attentively considers the different departments
of power must perceive, that, in a government in which
they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the
nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous
to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be
least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive
not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the
community. The legislature not only commands the purse,
but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of
every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the
contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the
purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth
of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever.
It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but
merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the
aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its
judgments.”
(emphasis supplied)
55
57. Given the fact that the U.S. Constitution did not contain any
Article resembling Article 144 of our Constitution, the case of the
Cherokee Indians vis-à-vis the State of Georgia is instructive. In the first
judgment dealing with the Cherokee Indians, Chief Justice Marshall
stated that the Supreme Court had no original jurisdiction to try the case
as the Cherokee nation was not a foreign nation [see Cherokee
Nations v. State of Georgia, 30 U.S. 1, 43 (1831)]. However, after this
first case was decided, the Georgia legislature passed a law requiring
all white persons living within the Cherokee territory of the State of
Georgia to obtain a license, and to take an oath of allegiance to the State
of Georgia. Two white missionaries refused to do so, and were arrested
and convicted by a Georgian Court to four years’ imprisonment. This
time, Chief Justice Marshall, in 1832, held the Georgia statute
unconstitutional on the ground that the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts
over Cherokee Indians was exclusive, and consequently, the State of
Georgia had no power to pass laws affecting them or their territory.
Consequently, the judgment of the Georgia superior court, convicting
the two white missionaries and sentencing them to prison was
overturned, and the Supreme Court ordered their release [see
56
Worcester v. State of Georgia, 31 U.S. 515 (1832)]. The writ that was
issued in favour of the two white missionaries was, however, never
executed. President Andrew Jackson is supposed famously to have
said, “Well, John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce
it.” President Jackson was of the opposite view to that of the Court,
stating that the state legislatures had powers to extend their laws over
all persons living within their boundaries. So, a judgment of the highest
court of the land was blatantly disobeyed by the State of Georgia, with
the backing of the President of the United States.
58. One hundred and twenty years later, the U.S. Supreme Court, in
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954),
overruled a long-standing precedent of 1896, namely, Plessy v.
Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), to now declare that there shall be
desegregation of black and white students in state schools. A
constitutional crisis was reached, when the Governor of Arkansas
openly flouted the desegregation order mandated by the U.S. Supreme
Court in Brown (supra). In 1957, as stated hereinabove, the Governor
of Arkansas and officers of the Arkansas National Guard obstructed
black children from entering the high school at Little Rock, Arkansas. An
57
uneasy tension prevailed as the students were prevented entry.
However, President Eisenhower then despatched federal troops to the
high school, as a result of which, admission of black students to the
school was thereby effected. In 1958, the School Board and the
Superintendent of Schools filed a petition in the District Court seeking
postponement of their programme for desegregation. This was because
of conditions at the ground level of “chaos, bedlam, and turmoil”. The
District Court granted the relief requested by the Board. The Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit stayed the aforesaid judgment.
59. In Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958), [“Cooper”] the US
Supreme Court, by a unanimous judgment, held:
“The controlling legal principles are plain. The command
of the Fourteenth Amendment is that no “State” shall deny
to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of
the laws. “A State acts by its legislative, its executive, or
its judicial authorities. It can act in no other way. The
constitutional provision, therefore, must mean that no
agency of the State, or of the officers or agents by whom
its powers are exerted, shall deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Whoever, by
virtue of public position under a State government . . .
denies or takes away the equal protection of the laws
violates the constitutional inhibition; and, as he acts in the
name and for the State, and is clothed with the State’s
power, his act is that of the State. This must be so, or the
constitutional prohibition has no meaning.” Ex parte
58
Virginia, 100 U. S. 339, 347; 25 L ed 676, 679. Thus, the
prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment extend to all
action of the State denying equal protection of the laws;
whatever the agency of the State taking the action, see
Virginia v. Rives, 100 U. S. 313; Pennsylvania v. Board of
Directors of City Trusts of Philadelphia, 353 U. S.
230; Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U. S. 1; or whatever the
guise in which it is taken, see Derrington v. Plummer, 240
F.2d 922; Department of Conservation and Development
v. Tate, 231 F.2d 615.
In short, the constitutional rights of children not to be
discriminated against in school admission on grounds of
race or colour declared by this Court in the Brown case
can neither be nullified openly and directly by state
legislators or state executive or judicial officers nor
nullified indirectly by them through evasive schemes for
segregation whether attempted “ingeniously or
ingenuously.” Smith v. Texas, 311 U. S. 128, 132.”
(emphasis supplied)
(at pp. 16-17)
60. Justice Frankfurter, in a separate concurring opinion, stated:
“When defiance of law, judicially pronounced, was last
sought to be justified before this Court, views were
expressed which are now especially relevant:
“The historic phrase ‘a government of laws, and
not of men’ epitomizes the distinguishing
character of our political society. When John
Adams put that phrase into the Massachusetts
Declaration of Rights, he was not indulging in a
rhetorical flourish. He was expressing the aim of
those who, with him, framed the Declaration of
Independence and founded the Republic. ‘A
government of laws, and not of men,’ was the
rejection in positive terms of rule by fiat, whether
59
by the fiat of governmental or private power.
Every act of government may be challenged by
an appeal to law, as finally pronounced by this
Court. Even this Court has the last say only for a
time. Being composed of fallible men, it may err.
But revision of its errors must be by orderly
process of law. The Court may be asked to
reconsider its decisions, and this has been done
successfully again and again throughout our
history. Or what this Court has deemed its duty
to decide may be changed by legislation, as it
often has been, and, on occasion, by
constitutional amendment.”
“But, from their own experience and their deep
reading in history, the Founders knew that Law
alone saves a society from being rent by
internecine strife or ruled by mere brute power
however disguised. ‘Civilization involves
subjection of force to reason, and the agency of
this subjection is law.’ (Pound, The Future of Law
(1937) 47 Yale L.J. 1, 13.) The conception of a
government by laws dominated the thoughts of
those who founded this Nation and designed its
Constitution, although they knew as well as the
belittlers of the conception that laws have to be
made, interpreted and enforced by men. To that
end, they set apart a body of men who were to
be the depositories of law, who, by their
disciplined training and character and by
withdrawal from the usual temptations of private
interest, may reasonably be expected to be ‘as
free, impartial, and independent as the lot of
humanity will admit.’ So strongly were the
framers of the Constitution bent on securing a
reign of law that they endowed the judicial office
with extraordinary safeguards and prestige. No
one, no matter how exalted his public office or
how righteous his private motive, can be judge in
60
his own case. That is what courts are for.” United
States v. United Mine Workers, 330 U. S.
258, 307-309 (concurring opinion).
The duty to abstain from resistance to “the supreme Law
of the Land,” U.S. Const., Art. VI, ¶ 2, as declared by the
organ of our Government for ascertaining it, does not
require immediate approval of it, nor does it deny the right
of dissent. Criticism need not be stilled. Active obstruction
or defiance is barred. Our kind of society cannot endure if
the controlling authority of the Law as derived from the
Constitution is not to be the tribunal specially charged with
the duty of ascertaining and declaring what is “the
supreme Law of the Land.” See President Andrew
Jackson’s Message to Congress of January 16, 1833, II
Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents
(1896 ed.) 610, 623.)”
(at pp. 23-24)
“That the responsibility of those who exercise power in a
democratic government is not to reflect inflamed public
feeling, but to help form its understanding, is especially
true when they are confronted with a problem like a
racially discriminating public school system. This is the
lesson to be drawn from the heartening experience in
ending enforced racial segregation in the public schools in
cities with Negro populations of large proportions.
Compliance with decisions of this Court, as the
constitutional organ of the supreme Law of the Land, has
often, throughout our history, depended on active support
by state and local authorities. It presupposes such
support. To withhold it, and indeed to use political power
to try to paralyze the supreme Law, precludes the
maintenance of our federal system as we have known and
cherished it for one hundred and seventy years.”
(emphasis supplied)
(at page 26)
61
61. The aftermath of this decision was the enactment of the Civil
Rights Act by the U.S. Congress in 1964. It was thanks to the decision
in Cooper (supra) that the U.S. Congress finally outlawed racial
discrimination in every form, including segregation of races at schools.
Social transformation, therefore, took place as a result of the decisions
in Brown (supra) and Cooper (supra). Constitutional morality did
ultimately triumph over racial discrimination.
62. In our country, an interesting incident took place in 1828, as a
result of which, there was a direct confrontation between the Supreme
Court at Bombay and Governor Malcolm. This incident is narrated in
P.B. Vachha’s book, “Famous Judges, Lawyers and Cases of Bombay”
as follows:
“In 1828, a few days after the death of West, the two
remaining judges of the Supreme Court issued a writ of
Habeas Corpus to the Poona court, for the production
before them of one Moro, a boy of 14, who was in the
guardianship of his uncle Pandurang, at the instance of
the boy’s father-in-law, who complained of the evil
influences of the uncle on the minor. It seems that the
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was vaguely defined in
its Charter; and Malcolm thought that the judges in issuing
the writ had exceeded their powers. He regarded the
occasion as a most favourable opportunity for striking a
blow at the Supreme Court. “The opportunity of striking a
blow at these courts,” he wrote, “was given me, and to the
utmost of my strength, I will inflict it.” He issued orders
62
instructing the Poona court to ignore the writ, with the
result that the writ remained unserved. This was a direct
and calculated challenge to the authority of the Supreme
Court. The Governor added insult to injury by addressing
a letter to the judges, informing them that he had given
orders to the Company’s servants to take no notice of any
writs issued by the Supreme Court to the mofussil courts,
or to native subjects resident outside the limits of the town
and island of Bombay. When the Clerk of the Court read
out this communication in open court at its next sitting, the
judges strongly and rightly resented the discourteous and
dictatorial tone of the communication; and they nobly and
valiantly declared that “the court would not allow any
individual, be his rank ever so distinguished, or his powers
ever so predominant, to address it in any other way
respecting its judicial and public functions, than as the
humblest suitor, who applies for its protection”; adding,
“within these walls, we know no equal and no superior but
God and the King”. They warned the government against
instigating any persons to disobey the writs of the King
issued by his judges.
Chambers died within a fortnight. At the next sitting
of the court, Grant, sitting alone, said that the government
had killed his brother judge, “but they shall not kill me”;
and that he was prepared to fight singlehanded for the
rights and privileges of his officer. Finding that no return
to the writ of Habeas Corpus was forthcoming, owing to
the obstruction of the government, Grant issued a fresh
writ returnable immediately, with a penalty of Rs.10,000 in
case of disobedience. A special constable was sent to
Poona with authority to seek military aid, if the civil
authorities obstructed him in the discharge of his duty. The
Commander of the Bombay forces, Sir Thomas Bradford,
who was at first disposed to support the government, now
veered round to the side of the judiciary, declaring that to
oppose the writ was to oppose the King, and he would call
out the military to enforce His Majesty’s writ.
63
Malcolm retorted by declaring that, if the
Commander interfered, he would “deport him bag and
baggage” out of India, regardless of all consequences.
Grant then took the extreme measure of going on strike
with his entire staff, and locked up the High Court,
suspending its functions for a period of about five months.
Malcolm, of course, was banking upon the support of the
home authorities. His friend, the Duke of Wellington, being
now Prime Minister, Malcolm hastened to forward to
London his own version of the case. Grant also had sent
his protest to the Board of Control. After some interval, the
long awaited despatch of the Board arrived. The Board
condemned the attitude of the Supreme Court, fortified it
seems by the Privy Council’s ruling, that the writ was
improperly issued by the Supreme Court over a person
outside their jurisdiction. As stated before, the territorial
limits of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court had been ill-
defined in its Charter; and it is also possible that, since
only the King’s Court had power to issue a writ of Habeas
Corpus, the judges might have thought that, in the matter
of this writ at least, their jurisdiction extended beyond the
town and island of Bombay.
The despatch of the India Board further contained
orders appointing Dewar, who was then Advocate-
General, as Chief Justice, and William Seymour, a
barrister, as puisne judge, Chambers being dead. Lord
Ellenborough, President of the Board of Control,
expressed the hope that “these appointments will prevent
all mischief in future; as Grant will now be like a wild
elephant between two tame elephants.” But Grant was
“wild elephant” with a very tough hide, and made of
sterner stuff for twenty years’ and closed his stormy and
valiant judicial career in 1848, as judge of the Supreme
Court of Calcutta. Grant forfeited the favour of the
authorities, but gained immensely in popularity with the
Bombay public. It is said that on his departure from
Bombay, “the natives drew his carriage”. Grant died at sea
64
on his voyage home, after his retirement from the Calcutta
High Court.”
(emphasis supplied)
(at pp. 196-198)
63. Given the chequered history of the open flouting of judgments of
superior courts in the 19
th
century, the 20
th
century has witnessed a
complete about-turn, as can be seen by the U.S. Supreme Court
judgment in Cooper v. Aaron (supra). Today, it is no longer open to any
person or authority to openly flout a Supreme Court judgment or order,
given the constitutional scheme as stated by us hereinabove. It is
necessary for us to restate these constitutional fundamentals in the light
of the sad spectacle of unarmed women between the ages of 10 and 50
being thwarted in the exercise of their fundamental right of worship at
the Sabarimala temple.
4
Let it be said that whoever does not act in aid
of our judgment, does so at his peril – so far as Ministers, both Central
and State, and MPs and MLAs are concerned, they would violate their
constitutional oath to uphold, preserve, and defend the Constitution of
4
The Travancore Devaswom Board, in the initial round of hearing, opposed the public
interest writ petitions that were filed in this Court. However, after the judgment dated
28.09.2018 was delivered by the Constitution Bench, Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned
Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Board, appeared before us and opposed the
review petitions that were filed in this Court, stating that the Board has decided to accept
this Court’s judgment.
65
India. So far as the citizens of India are concerned, we would do well to
remind them of the fundamental duties of citizens laid down in Article
51A of the Constitution, in particular, clauses (a), (e), and (h) thereof,
which state:
“51A. Fundamental duties.—It shall be the duty of every
citizen of India—
(a) to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and
institutions, the National Flag and the National Anthem;
xxx xxx xxx
(e) to promote harmony and the spirit of common
brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending
religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities; to
renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women;
xxx xxx xxx
(h) to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the
spirit of inquiry and reform;
xxx xxx xxx”
(emphasis supplied)
We may, at this juncture, make it clear that the freedom to criticise the
judgments of this Court is not being interfered with. Lord Atkin’s famous
words, in the case of Ambard v. Attorney-General for Trinidad And
Tobago, [1936] A.C. 322, come to mind:
“But whether the authority and position of an individual
judge, or the due administration of justice, is concerned,
no wrong is committed by any member of the public who
exercises the ordinary right of criticising, in good faith, in
66
private or public, the public act done in the seat of justice.
The path of criticism is a public way: the wrong headed
are permitted to err therein: provided that members of the
public abstain from imputing improper motives to those
taking part in the administration of justice, and are
genuinely exercising a right of criticism, and not acting in
malice or attempting to impair the administration of justice,
they are immune. Justice is not a cloistered virtue: she
must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even
though outspoken, comments of ordinary men.”
(at page 335)
64. Bona fide criticism of a judgment, albeit of the highest court of
the land, is certainly permissible, but thwarting, or encouraging persons
to thwart, the directions or orders of the highest court cannot be
countenanced in our Constitutional scheme of things. After all, in India’s
tryst with destiny, we have chosen to be wedded to the rule of law as
laid down by the Constitution of India. Let every person remember that
the “holy book” is the Constitution of India, and it is with this book in
hand that the citizens of India march together as a nation, so that they
may move forward in all spheres of human endeavour to achieve the
great goals set out by this “Magna Carta” or Great Charter of India.
65. The Constitution places a non-negotiable obligation on all
authorities to enforce the judgments of this Court. The duty to do so
arises because it is necessary to preserve the rule of law. If those whose
67
duty it is to comply were to have a discretion on whether or not to abide
by a decision of the court, the rule of law would be set at naught. Judicial
remedies are provided to stakeholders before a judgment is pronounced
and even thereafter. That, indeed, is how the proceedings in review in
the present case have been initiated. Hence arguments have been
addressed, exchanged between counsel and considered with the sense
of objectivity and fairness on which the judicial process rests. These
remedies within a rule of law framework provide recourse to all those
who may be and are affected by the course of a judicial decision. When
the process is complete and a decision is pronounced, it is the decision
of the Supreme Court and binds everyone. Compliance is not a matter
of option. If it were to be so, the authority of the court could be diluted at
the option of those who are bound to comply with its verdicts.
66. The State of Kerala is directed to give wide publicity to this
judgment through the medium of television, newspapers, etc. The
government should take steps to secure the confidence of the
community in order to ensure the fulfillment of constitutional values. The
State government may have broad -based consultations with
representatives of all affected interests so that the modalities devised
68
for implementing the judgment of the Court meet the genuine concerns
of all segments of the community. Organised acts of resistance to thwart
the implementation of this judgment must be put down firmly. Yet in
devising modalities for compliance, a solution which provides lasting
peace, while at the same time reaffirming human dignity as a
fundamental constitutional value, should be adopted. Consistent with
the duties inhering in it, we expect the State government to ensure that
the rule of law is preserved. All petitions are disposed of accordingly.
……………………………..J.
(R.F. Nariman)
……………………………..J.
(D.Y. Chandrachud)
New Delhi;
November 14, 2019.
Legal Notes
Add a Note....