Thiruvananthapuram: A three-judge bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice S. K. Kaul and Justice K. M. Joseph will hear the Sabarimala writ petitions, but it will be known only on November 12 whether the Constitution bench will hear the admissibility of the review petitions in chamber or in the open court.
The bench is scheduled to take up the review petitions on November 13, as decided by the Chief Justice, but whether the matter will be disposed of at the chamber or in the open court will be known from the court registry the previous day.
Meanwhile, Attorney General K. K. Venugopal has opted out of deciding the question whether to grant sanction for moving contempt petitions on the Sabarimala verdict. It is mandatory to get the AG’s prior sanction to move for contempt on certain matters. Instead of the Attorney General, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta is likely to consider the question of sanction for moving the contempt plea by the parties concerned.
The contempt has been sought to be moved against BJP state president P. S. Sreesharan Pillai, tantri Kandararu Rajivararu and Pandalam ex-royal P. Ramavarmaraja.
Sources said Mr Venugopal decided not sit in judgment on the contempt plea on issues of integrity and propriety as he had backed the minority judgment of Justice Indu Malhotra and had appeared for the Devaswom Board in the Sabarimala case.
The writ petitions, which are in the form of public interest litigation, will be treated as fresh petitions and heard by the bench, headed by the Chief Justice, in accordance with the current roster system. It is quite plausible that the writ petitions are dismissed in limine (at the threshold).
But it is also possible that the three-judge bench may order tagging of the writ petitions along with review petitions to be heard by the Constitution bench, which might happen the same day or a later date fixed by the bench. The review petitions have been filed on the grounds that all interested persons were not heard by the Constitution bench, that a set of petitioners was not allowed to withdraw, that the verdict has given rise to agitations and the original petitioners did not have the locus as they were not directly concerned with Sabarimala.
