On Monday, the Supreme Court announced that a nine-judge Constitution bench will be formed to hear, from January 13, the issue of allowing women and girls of all ages to enter Kerala's Sabarimala shrine, along with other contentious issues of alleged discrimination against Muslim and Parsi women. The notice was filed on a petition by Indian Young Lawyers Association, seeking review of its historic 2018 judgement allowing women and girls of all ages to enter Sabarimala temple. The names of the nine judges are yet to be announced.
The Sabarimala case is only one among the many contentious issues that will be adjudicated by the Supreme Court in 2020. After its reopening on Monday after the winter vacation, it has to take on the controversial Citizenship (Amendment) Act and petitions related to the abrogation of provisions of Article 370 of the Constitution.
Sabarimala
On November 14, last year, a five-judge constitution bench in a 3:2 majority verdict had referred to a larger bench, the pleas seeking review of its historic 2018 judgement allowing women and girls of all ages to enter Sabarimala temple. The apex court said a larger bench will re-examine various religious issues, including the entry of women into the Sabarimala temple. According to a temple custom and belief, girls and women of menstruating age (10-50 years) are not allowed as the lord is a celibate yogi and is under meditation. It had, however, said that the debate about the constitutional validity of religious practices like bar on entry of women and girls into a place of worship was not limited to the Sabarimala case. The top court said such restrictions are there with regard to entry of Muslim women into mosques and 'dargah' and Parsi women, married to non-Parsi men, being barred from the holy fire place of an Agyari. It said that it was time for the apex court to evolve a judicial policy to do "substantial and complete justice".
Tata Sons Private Limited
There is also a petition filed by Tata Sons Private Limited (TSPL), challenging the December 18 decision of NCLAT restoring Cyrus Mistry as the executive chairman of the group and saying the verdict had "undermined corporate democracy" and the "rights" of its board of directors. TSPL, formerly known as Tata Sons Limited, has sought setting aside of the impugned judgment of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), alleging that it was "completely inconsistent with the annals of corporate law". Mistry, the scion of the wealthy Shapoorji Pallonji family, had, in December 2012, succeeded Ratan Tata as the executive chairman of Tata Sons, a post that also made him the head of all Tata group-listed firms such as Tata Power and Tata Motors. In an overnight coup, he was removed as the chairman of Tata Sons in October 2016. Along with him, the entire senior management too was purged and Ratan Tata was back at the helm of affairs, four years after he retired. The NCLAT, in a big relief to Mistry and Cyrus Investment Pvt Ltd, had restored the former as the executive chairman of TSPL and ruled that the appointment of N. Chandrasekaran as the head of the holding company of the $110 billion salt-to-software conglomerate was illegal.
SC/ST creamy layer concept
The top court will also take up the contentious issue of whether the creamy layer concept should apply to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes while giving them reservation in promotions. In December 2019, the Centre had urged the Supreme Court to refer its 2018 verdict excluding the creamy layer within the SC/ST community from reservation benefits to a 7-judge bench for a review. The question was whether 'creamy layer concept' could be applied to exclude persons who have come up to ensure that the backward among the SC/ST communities can reap the benefits of quota. The M. Nagaraj verdict of 2006 had held that it cannot be applied to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for promotions in government jobs, like two earlier verdicts of 1992 Indra Sawhney and others versus Union of India (popularly called Mandal Commission verdict) and 2005 E.V. Chinnaiah versus State of Andhra Pradesh which had dealt with creamy layer in Other Backward Classes category. It had reiterated that the ceiling-limit of 50 per cent, the concept of the creamy layer and the compelling reasons like backwardness, inadequacy of representation and overall administrative efficiency were all constitutional requirements, without which the structure of equality of opportunity in Article 16 would collapse. Attorney General K.K. Venugopal, for the Centre, had told the SC in 2018 that there is no judgment which says that affluent people of the SC/ST community can be denied quota benefits by applying creamy layer concept. The top law officer said that even if some people of the community have come up, the stigma of caste and backwardness is still attached to them.
Abrogation of Article 370
On January 21, a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Justices N.V. Ramana is likely to resume hearing on a batch of petitions challenging Centre's August last year decision to abrogate provisions of Article 370, which gave special status to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir. The top court had on December 12 indicated that it may consider the question of referring the issue of challenge to the abrogation of provisions of Article 370, to a larger seven-judge bench after hearing the preliminary submission of all the parties. A number of petitions have been filed in the matter including that of private individuals, lawyers, activists and political parties and they have also challenged the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act 2019, which splits J&K into two union territories—Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. Eyes are also set on the pronouncement of verdict on a batch of pleas including that of Congress leader Ghulam Nabi Azad challenging restrictions imposed in the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir following abrogation of provisions of Article 370. The top court had on November 27 last year, reserved its verdict on a batch of pleas challenging the restrictions imposed in the erstwhile state.
Citizenship Act
The very next day, on January 22, a bench headed by Chief Justice S.A. Bobde is scheduled to hear a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the amended Citizenship Act, which seeks to grant citizenship to non-Muslim migrants belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Christian, Jain and Parsi communities who came to the country from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan on or before December 31, 2014. The top court on December 18, while agreeing to examine the issue, had issued notice to the Centre and sought its response by the second week of January. It had, however, refused to stay the operation of the act and asked Centre, to consider using audio-visual medium to make citizens aware of the legislation. Parliament had cleared the bill which grants citizenship rights to religious minorities such as Hindus, Christians, Sikhs, Parsis, Jains and Buddhists, who came to India on or before December 31, 2014. President Ram Nath Kovind had given assent to the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019 on December 12, turning it into an act. Over 59 petitions including that of Indian Union Muslim League (IUML), Congress leader Jairam Ramesh, RJD leader Manoj Jha, Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi, Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, All Assam Students Union (AASU), Peace Party, CPI, NGOs 'Rihai Manch' and Citizens Against Hate, advocate M.L. Sharma, and law students have been filed in the apex court challenging the act.
-Inputs from PTI
