Skip to main content
Browse Law School Education Constitutional Law Discussion on the Sabarimala Case

Charu Mathur: So during the rehearing of the review, during the open—I will not say rehearing, I’ll say during the hearing of review in the open court, did any party bring out these points while arguing?

Prashant Padmanabhan: No, none of them! They had never pointed out all these things. All of them found the review of Sabarimala judgment only.

Charu Mathur: Both sides?

Prashant Padmanabhan: No, this side.

Charu Mathur: People who were taking review or people who were standing with the judgment. Did anybody got this Parsi entry or FGM or any other issue?

Prashant Padmanabhan: No, we were supporting the judgment on this side, and we argued that this need not be reviewed, can be dismissed. Review petitions are to be dismissed.

Charu Mathur: And the other side also did not?

Prashant Padmanabhan: Other side, Parasaran was the main senior counsel. He argued that Sabarimala’s original judgment was wrong. He argued that.

Charu Mathur: Right.

Prashant Padmanabhan: But he never said that since other issues are pending, it has to go to a larger Bench. He tried to point out that this judgment is not in accordance with the review of the Supreme Court. These particular devotees who were going to that place of worship, Sabarimala, should be given a special right. And they should be treated like a denomination and their right is to be respected. But the order… this judgment referred to so many other issues and then made a reference.

Raw HTML