Sabrimala Review | Table of Arguments: What have both sides argued in their Written Submissions?

EARLIER TODAY, a bench of nine judges began hearing the review of the Supreme Court’s 2018 Sabarimala verdict which struck down the temple’s prohibition on the entry of menstruating women between the ages of 10 and 50. The matter is being heard by a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices B.V. Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, A.G. Masih, P.B. Varale, R. Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi. 

In February 2020, the Court had framed seven issues for consideration.

Today, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for the Union government, argued that the Court lacked the jurisdiction to bring social reforms to religion or any religious denomination and the competence to bring social reform measures remained with the legislature.

The table below maps the detailed written submissions of the Review Petitioners on the issues we considered most significant to the review.

The table below maps the written submissions of the Respondents on the issues we considered most significant to the review.

Notes:

I – While the Court has framed seven issues, the classification in the table is based on the most prominent and comprehensive arguments identified across the written submissions. The tables below classify the arguments along six of the seven arguments framed by the Court.

II – As per the compilation prepared by the nodal counsel, there were fourteen written submissions by Review Petitioners and twelve written submissions by Respondents.