New Delhi: The Travancore Devaswom Board can seek a review of the recent Supreme Court verdict throwing the door open to women of all ages by lifting the ban on entry of women in the age group of 10 to 50 mainly on the ground that the judgment was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.
The SC being the court of last resort has provided a mechanism under the Supreme Court Rules for filing a review petition, whether an order passed by this court should be corrected under its inherent powers on the ground that it was passed either without jurisdiction or in violation of the principles of natural justice or due to unfair procedure giving scope for bias which resulted in abuse of the process of the court or miscarriage of justice to an aggrieved person or a class of persons.
There is now a clamour for filing a review petition against the Sabarimala verdict. Leaders like Oommen Chandy, Ramesh Chennithala, the BJP and even Devaswom Board are on the same page. Though the Kerala government is in favour of allowing entry of women of all ages, the board can seek a review.
A review is filed when the court has not considered all the grounds urged or has considered only few grounds leaving a few without any answer or the grounds are wrongly decided which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. The review plea, to be filed within 30 days, is decided in the Chamber of the presiding judge.
If in the preliminary examination the judges feel that the case has to be heard in open court, then the board can list the matter for hearing in open court.
In this case since the presiding judge was Chief Justice Dipak Misra himself, it is likely that the incoming CJI, Ranjan Gogoi, may head the Constitution Bench with other judges remaining in the bench. It is open to the CJI to have a different combination of judges also. Once a review is rejected, then there is scope for filing a curative petition also, which will be decided by top five judges in terms of seniority.
The Board citing the minority view of woman Judge Justice Indu Malhotra can say the verdict will have far-reaching ramifications and implications, not only for the Sabarimala Temple in Kerala, but for all places of worship, which have their own beliefs, practises, customs and usages, which may be considered to be exclusionary in nature. Further it could be pointed out that none of those who were denied entry or affected moved the court but only an association which has no locus to fight on behalf of millions of devotees.
The right of an individual to worship a specific manifestation of the deity, in accordance with the tenets of that faith or shrine, is protected by Article 25(1) of the Constitution. If a person claims to have faith in a certain deity, the same has to be articulated in accordance with the tenets of that fait and it is upto to the religious leaders in the community whether continue the practice or not.
In the present case, the worshippers of this Temple believe in the manifestation of the deity as a Naisthik Brahmachari (celibate) and it is open for the Board that the penance of the Lord Ayyappa ought not to be disturbed and by opening the doors for all women the character of the deity would be altered.
The Board can say that there is merit in the minority view that the Court couldn’t impose its morality or rationality with respect to the form of worship of a deity. Doing so would negate the freedom to practise one’s religion according to one’s faith and beliefs. It would amount to rationalising religion, faith and beliefs, which is outside the ken of Courts.
