Thursday is going to be a power-packed day as the Supreme Court is set to pronounce verdicts in some of the most important cases after Ayodhya. The top court on Thursday will pronounce its verdict on petitions seeking a review of its judgement giving a clean chit to the Modi government in the Rafale fighter jet deal with French firm Dassault Aviation. Other than this, the Supreme Court will also give its verdict on a batch of petitions seeking re-examination of its decision to allow entry of women of all age groups in Kerala's Sabarimala Temple.
The third verdict on Thursday would be the on a contempt petition filed by BJP lawmaker Meenakshi Lekhi against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi for wrongly attributing the court while using his infamous "chowkidar chor hai" remark.
Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi is set to retire on November 17, before which he is scheduled to deliver verdicts in some of the most important cases.
Rafale review petition
The apex court, on May 10 had reserved its decision on the pleas, including one filed by former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie and activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan, seeking a re-examination of its findings that there was no occasion to doubt the decision-making process in the procurement of 36 Rafale fighter jets.
On December 14, 2018, the apex court dismissed the petitions seeking an investigation into alleged irregularities in the Rs 58,000 crore deal. However, while reserving the judgement on the review petitions, the apex court had posed searching questions to the Centre on its deal with France to buy 36 Rafale fighter jets on issues like "waiver of sovereign guarantee" and the absence of technology transfer clause in the IGA pact.
The bench had referred to a judgement in the Lalita Kumari case which said that an FIR is a must when information revealed commission of the cognizable offence.
Attorney General KK Venugopal had told the bench that "there has to be a prima facie case, otherwise they (agencies) cannot proceed. The information must disclose the commission of the cognizable offence".
The Rafale deal remained at the centre of opposition campaign in the run-up to this year’s national elections, particularly the one led by then Congress chief Rahul Gandhi.
Bhushan had submitted that the December 2018 judgement did not deal with the prayer seeking probe into the deal and decided the petition on the premise that it was seeking cancellation of IGA. He had contended that the Centre misled the court by referring to a non-existent CAG report in November 2018 hearing when it is on record that the report came later in February this year.
Bhushan had alleged suppression of material facts from the court by the Centre and said that as many eight critical clauses of the standard defence procurement procedure were dropped in the deal in the meeting of Cabinet Committee on Security in September 2016.
One of the clauses dealt with the aspect that the government can cancel the deal if the information of any involvement of middleman comes to the light, he said.
He had referred to the news articles and said that three experts of the Indian Negotiation Team (INT) had also raised the objections to the inflated pricing of the aircraft.
Venugopal had vehemently opposed the submissions and sought dismissals of review petitions, saying basic grounds of these pleas were the same as in the main case.
Sabarimala verdict
The Supreme Court is scheduled to pronounce on Thursday its verdict on a batch of petitions seeking re-examination of its decision to allow entry of women of all age groups in Kerala's Sabarimala Temple. The apex court will deliver its judgement on as many as 65 petitions -- including 56 review petitions and four fresh writ petitions and five transfer pleas -- which were filed after its verdict sparked violent protests in Kerala.
A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had reserved its decision on February 6 after hearing various parties including those seeking re-consideration of the September 28, 2018 judgement.
Other members of the bench are justices RF Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra.
The apex court, by a majority verdict of 4:1, on September 38, 2018, had lifted the ban that prevented women and girls between the age of 10 and 50 from entering the famous Ayyappa shrine in Kerala and had held that this centuries-old Hindu religious practice was illegal and unconstitutional.
The five-judge constitution had heard the pleas in an open court and reserved its decision after hearing the parties, including Nair Service Society, Thantry of the temple, The Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) and the state government, in favour and against the review plea.
The TDB, which runs Sabarimala temple, had made a U-turn to support the Supreme Court's order allowing women of all ages to enter the shrine.
The TDB had joined the Kerala government to oppose a batch of pleas seeking review of the historic verdict. The Board later asserted that its latest position was not due to any political pressure.
Some right-wing activists have alleged that the Board changed its stand before the court under pressure from the state's CPI(M)-led LDF government.
The Kerala government, which had taken conflicting stands on women's entry into the hilltop shrine, supported the verdict and urged the court to trash review pleas.
Senior advocate Jaideep Gupta, appearing for the state government, had said a constitutional court should not worry about law and order problems and "social disturbances".
The exclusion of women from temples is not an essential practice of the Hindu religion, he had argued.
At the outset, the bench told lawyers it would hear only those who are parties to review petitions and asked them to confine arguments on grounds for reconsideration of the judgement.
Senior advocate K Parasaran, appearing for Nair Service Society, assailed the majority verdict, saying Article 15 of the Constitution throws open for public the secular institutions of the country but doesn't deal with religious institutions.
Seeking a reconsideration, he said Article 17 which deals with the abolition of untouchability in society was wrongly used by the court in its judgment as the exclusion of certain age groups of women was not based on caste.
Parasaran also referred to the celibate or 'Naishtika Brahmachari' character of the Sabarimala deity and said the exclusionary practice was based on the nature of the deity and the apex court should have considered this aspect.
He also referred to Article 25 (fundamental right to practice religion) and said unless a religious practice is "abhorrent', a court usually does not interfere with the activities associated with religious institutions.
Senior advocate A M Singhvi, representing TDB's ex-chairperson, argued in favour of a review of the judgment. "There is no exclusion of women. There is no exclusion of men. There is no exclusion of a class of men or women based on religion and caste. There is an exclusion inside a class (women). Hence Article 17 (removal of untouchability) will not apply," Singhvi had said.
Dealing with the aspect of constitutional morality, the lawyer said that in a pluralistic Hindu society this concept cannot be applied objectively by the court and it has to be subjective keeping in mind different essential religious practices.
Senior advocate V Giri, who represented the shrine thantry, said the temple allows entry of all persons inside and there is no exclusion of any class of citizen based on caste, gender and religion.
"The fundamental right to worship also includes the character of the deity and every devotee cannot question this character which also formed part of the essential religious practice there," he had said.
Senior lawyer Shekhar Naphade had said the court cannot direct a community to practice religion in a particular manner.
"This is an internal affair of a religious community which worships a particular deity in a particular manner. This has never been in dispute that this practice is being followed for centuries.
"The court cannot issue a writ of mandamus against a community to practice its religion in a particular manner," Naphade said, adding this was an essential religious practice which cannot be scrutinised.
He had that any religious practice cannot be stopped unless it constituted a criminal offence.
Contempt case against Rahul Gandhi
The Supreme Court will also pronounce tomorrow its judgment on a contempt petition filed by BJP lawmaker Meenakshi Lekhi against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi for wrongly attributing the court while using his infamous "chowkidar chor hai" remark.
Lekhi had accused Gandhi of misquoting the April 10 order of the apex court. He allegedly said that the apex court had accepted that 'chowkidar' (a reference to Prime Minister Modi), is a "chor' (thief).
Pursuant to this, the Supreme Court had issued a contempt notice against Gandhi. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi was categorical that Gandhi had to either offer a clear-cut apology or face criminal contempt.
Subsequently, Gandhi tendered an unconditional apology to the top court and sought closure of the contempt proceedings against him.
During the course of proceedings, former Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, who represented Lekhi, had argued that Gandhi's apology should be rejected and action must be taken against him.
"He (Gandhi) has only expressed regret. The law is clear in contempt cases that the line starts with an unconditional apology," he had submitted before the court.
Besides the contempt case against Rahul Gandhi, the top court will also pass the verdict on a batch of review petitions in the Sabrimala and Rafale case.
Also Read | Rahul Gandhi rakes up Rafale deal in Maharashtra poll campaign
Also Read | Ahead of SC verdict, Sabarimala all set for new season
