MINORITY VIEW

2018 judgment, meaning that women of all ages, including female devotees in the childbearing age group of 10-50 years, can still offer prayers at the temple.

“The decision of a larger bench would put at rest recurring issues touching the upon the rights flowing from Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India,” which deal with religious matters, read the majority judgment by CJI Gogoi, who wrote it, and justices AM Khanwilkar and Indu Malhtora.

“It is essential to adhere to

(Justice RF Nariman Justice DY Chandrachud)

On nature of the review petitions: What a future constitution bench … may or may not do … is, strictly speaking, not before this court at all. The only thing that is before this court is the review petitions and the writ petitions

On complexity of cases on religious practice: The delicate balance between the exercise of religious rights by different groups within the same faith that is found in Article 25 has to be determined on a case by case basis.

The… argument, that this judgment will be used to undermine religious rights of others… is without basis. judicial discipline and propriety when more than one petition is pending on the same, similar or overlapping issues in the same court for which all cases must proceed together,” read the judgment.

Justice RF Nariman, writing a dissenting judgment by himself and justice DY Chandrachud, regretted his “inability to agree with” the view of the CJI and said the scope of the review pleas was limited to the entry of menstruating women into the hilltop shrine.

and