#Sabarimala hearing to commence today: First 9-judge bench in Supreme Court after more than 2 years. Last one was on Right to Privacy if I am not wrong.
#Sabarimala: 9-judge bench of SC assembles.

We are not hearing review petitions, we are only hearing the seven questions referred to larger bench by the 5 judge bench in Sabarimala case, CJI SA Bobde makes it clear.
#Sabarimala: Lawyer for one of the petitioners in sabarimala says he has not been supplied copies of the petitions in cases raising similar issues on rights of Muslim and Parsi women.
#Sabarimala: Petitioners raising preliminary objections.

Indira Jaising says the review judgment did not decide on correctness of 2018 Sabarimala jidgment and decision on review is a pre-condition to answering the constitutional questions raised in the review judgment.
#Sabarimala: Questions before this bench are academic and it can be decided only if the correctness of Shirur Math judgment or 2018 Sabarimala are in doubt.

As of now, no decision has been given on 2018 judgment and nobody has doubted correctness of Shirur Math, says Jaising
#Sabarimala: Bench seems inclined to hear the case.

"Your lordships have to judicially opine that the decision of the 5-judge bench is incorrect.

Unless someone says Shirur math is wrong, how can a 9-judge bench decide this", Jaising asks.
#Sabarimala: Issues on three religions (Hinduism, Islam and Zorastrianism) are different, they cannot be decided together, says Jaising.
#Sabarimala: "It is not the business of this court to tell people what their religion is", says Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan opposing intervention of courts in religious matters.
#Sabarimala: AM Singhvi says it is an extremely important matter, raises two issues.

1. He requests for more time to prepare submissions.

2. The issues have been framed very broadly by Review bench.
#Sabarimala: Singhvi says he along with other lawyers involved are ready to reframe the issues which will help the bench focus the hearing only on the relevant issue to be heard.
#Sabarimala: CJI SA Bobde says bench is thinking of listing all petitions including entry of Muslim women to mosques, female genital mutilation among Dawoodi Borah and entry of parsi women to fire place before the 9-judge bench.
#Sabarimala: All of us have spoken but Mr. Parasaran has not spoken, says Dr. AM Singhvi.
#Sabarimala: Supreme Court orders that a meeting of lawyers appearing for parties should be held on January 17 to finalise the issues to be decided by 9-judge bench

SC Secretary General should attend this meeting.

Parties should finalise the issues in three weeks.
#Sabarimala: Court said that parties should decide who should argue which issue and the time limit for the same; suggests Ayodhya hearing as an example.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Murali Krishnan

Murali Krishnan Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @legaljournalist

May 17, 2021
A late night sitting by Kolkata High Court to cancel interim bail granted to two sitting State ministers, one MLA and one former Mayor.
Calcutta* High Court not Kolkata. The chartered High Court legacy.
More interesting news. This was not an appeal against the lower court order but a plea for transfer of trial under Section 407 CrPC.
Read 6 tweets
Sep 21, 2020
Sudarshan News and media regulation: Hearing commences before Supreme Court.

Centre has filed a fresh affidavit calling for regulation of digital media before the court takes up issue of regulation of TV channels.
Senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi is appearing on behalf News Broadcasters Federation which has sought impleadment in the matter.
Rohatgi says NBF is the largest body of tv channels in India with 160 members from different parts of the country.

He submits News Broadcasters Association is not representative of news channels and seeks permission to file an affidavit to put forth a self-regulatory mechanism.
Read 18 tweets
Sep 18, 2020
Hearing against Sudarshan News commences before the Supreme Court.
Sanjay Hegde enters appearance on behalf of Zakaf Foundation of India.

"I have a watching brief in this matter. We are not a party to this matter," says Hegde.
Justice DY Chandrachud tells Hegde that Sudarshan News has raised substantial issues against Zakaf Foundation.

"But we are not here to investigate into your client. But Sudarshan News has sought to justify their programme on the grounds of your source of funding"
Read 42 tweets
Sep 17, 2020
Sudarshan News and UPSC Jihad: Hearing commences before Supreme Court.
Sr. Counsel Anoop Chaudhuri appearing for petitioner says Sudarshan news has filed an affidavit with vague allegations and submits he wants to file a rejoinder.
Shyam Divan says it was difficult to file a detailed affidavit in two days. We (lawyers) are all in different locations.
We were ambushed by various applications/ interventions, he submits.
Read 4 tweets
Sep 17, 2020
Sudarshan News files affidavit before Supreme court defending its programme Bindas Bol and the use of the term "UPSC Jehad".

The affidavit largely focuses on foreign funding received by Zakat Foundation, an orgnisation which supports civil service aspirants.
Sudarshan News has claimed that some such funds received by Zakat Foundation are from terror-linked organisations.

The organisations/ individuals named in the affidavit are Madina Trust, Muslim Aid (UK), Zakat Foundation of America and Zakir Naik
The affidavit says the TV channel has no ill-will against any particular community or individual and do not oppose selection of any meritorious candidate

"There is no statement or message in the four episodes broadcast thatmembers of a particular community should not join UPSC"
Read 8 tweets
Sep 15, 2020
Supreme Court raises grave concerns about the manner in which debates are conducted by certain television channels.

Justice KM Joseph says many times panellists are not allowed to speak and anchor takes up most of the time and panellists are also half-muted.
Supreme Court berates Sudarshan news.

Here is one anchor who says one particular community is trying to gain access to UPSC. Can anything be more insidious than such claims. Such allegations affect stability of country and also casts aspersions on credibility of exam.
In the UPSC exam, all are subject to same tests, interviews and are assessed by same persons. But the insinuation is one community is trying to infiltrate the UPSC. Can such allegations without factual basis be allowed, asks Justice DY Chandrachud?
Read 15 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(