Thread by @legaljournalist

64 petitions, 3 religions, 9 judges.

Supreme Court set to frame legal issues today in the cases concerning Sabarimala temple entry for women, female gential mutilation, entry of muslim women into mosques, and bar on parsi women - married to non parsi men - in Aghyari. @htTweets

#Sabarimala: Bench assembles, hearing commences.

"We could not agree to the issues framed by everyone. Judges can consider framing the issues in chamber. No need to do it in open court", says Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.

#Sabarimala: Sr. Adv. Fali Nariman questioning the 5-judge bench's decision to refer questions to a larger bench in review petitions.

Can such a thing be done in exercise of review jurisdiction, asks Fali Nariman.

#Sabarimala: The legal issues were answered by bench of 5 by 4 to 1 majority.

A review petition against such a decision is limited in scope, says Nariman.

#Sabarimala: Fali Nariman says law can be settled as and when cases come up before the SC but court cannot be called upon to answer such questions in exercise of review jurisdiction.

#Sabarimala: But there are other cases too and not just Sabarimala, says CJI.

Those cases are related to Sabarimala. The judgment of review bench itself says that, Nariman responds. @htTweets

#Sabarimala: CJI SA Bobde stresses that similar petitions are pending and review petitions have not been decided finally by the judgment (of Nov 2019)

"As per review petition judgment, review petitions have not been decided. It will be decided at a later stage"

#Sabarimala: The review jurisdiction is very limited.

I am not challenging the CJI's prerogative to constitute 9 judge benches to hear cases.

My objection is to the use of review to do that. It will be a bad precedent and will be used again in future, says Fali Nariman.

#Sabarimala: Nariman says the questions referred to larger Bench by the review bench in Nov 2019 were decided by the 5 judge bench in Sabarimala case in 2018

#Sabarimala: CJI Bobde says the maintainability issue raised by Nariman can itself be considered as one of the issues which the 9-judge bench can settle.

#Sabarimala: Sr Adv Kapil Sibal also supports Fali Nariman.

Sr adv. AM Singhvi, however, says 9 judge bench should go ahead and frame issues.

Many of the disagreements will be ironed out during the hearing, says Singhvi.

#Sabarimala: Rajeev Dhavan also throw his weight behind Fali Nariman.

Dhavan submits review cannot be kept pending because other cases on similar issues are pending.

#Sabarimala: "The distinction between Sabarimala and other cases is that Sabarimala is a decided case", Dhavan.

"We (9-judge bench) will not be deciding sabarimala case", says CJI Bobde.

#Sabarimala: "As of now, we are not aborting the hearing", says CJI Bobde.

#Sabarimala: Sr. Counsel Jaideep Gupta calls for harmonious construction of Articles 25 and 26.

#Sabarimala: Everything in the reference order is in the nature of speculation, says Sr. Adv. Shyam Divan.

#Sabarimala: Reference to larger bench is not permissible in review petition

Review can only be used to correct errors in main judgment.

It can't be used to frame issues and refer same to larger bench. That could have been done only during pendency of writ petition, Shyam Divan

#Sabarimala: CJI Bobde reiterates that maintainability of the case before the 9- judge bench itself should be one of the issues which the bench can consider.

#Sabarimala: Shyam Divan says there should be a two-part hearing - on maintainability and merits.

Should not hear the two aspects together, says Divan.

#Sabarimala: K Parasaran says the case being a public interest litigation, the 9-judge bench can look into the matter. @htTweets

#Sabarimala: We will adjourn the case now.

We will frame the issues including issue of whether a review bench can frame questions and refer matter to larger bench, CJI Bobde remarks.