Sabarimala row: Supreme Court agrees to hear review petitions in open court; Schedules next hearing for January 22

The Supreme Court heard the writ petitions on Tuesday and have scheduled the hearing of the 43 review pleas to January 22. 

The hearing will take place in open court.

The petitions are regarding the entry of women between the ages 10 and 50 into the Sabarimala Temple.

The five-member SC bench will comprise of Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Nariman, Chandrachud, Khanwilkar and Indu Malhotra.  

On September 28, the Supreme Court bench headed by the then CJI Dipak Misra comprised of Justices Indu Malhotra, Chandrachud and Nariman. The judges passed a landmark judgment scrapping a centuries-old tradition which did not allow menstruating women to enter the temple. 

After stating that the hearing of the review petitions will take place privately in the Judges' chambers, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the 49 review petitions in open court. 

The hearing has been scheduled for January 22. 

The hearing for the 49 review petitions have commenced is currently going on inside the judges' chambers. 

The Kerala High Court took cognizance of the violence in Sabarimala in October before the opening of the temple doors. The state's top court asked the devoswom board for an explanation. 

Protesters at Pamba and Nilakkal used violence and force to stop women from commencing their trek uphill to the Sabarimala shrine. 

Till now, no woman has entered the temple. 

Protests were held since morning on Tuesday supporting the SC's verdict at Thiruvananthapuram's Central Stadium ahead of the Supreme Court hearing the review petitions.

The SC bench headed by CJI Gogoi will commence the hearing for the review petitions of the verdict passed in September which allowed women's entry into Sabarimala. 

When the doors were opened for the first pilgrimage in October, many women tried to enter the temple but were turned away in the base camps, Pamba and Nilakkal by protesters.

The rioters, mainly women threatened violence against the women. 

Women journalists from Republic TV, NDTV, CNN News18  were attacked and protesters even pelted stones at some of their cars. 

Reports state that around 14 women were turned away.

Two of them, Rehana Fathima and Kavitha Jakkal braved the crowds to reach the doors of the temple with a 100 strong security team but were turned away. 

The BJP on Thursday started a Rath Yatra to 'protect the traditions' of the Sabarimala temple. The Rath Yatra was led by Kerala BJP chief Sreedharan Pillai and Bharat Dharma Jana Sena (BDJS) President Tushar Vellapally, from Madhur Siddhi Vinayaka temple at Kozhikode. 

The opposition, Congress also started many yatras from Kasargod, Alapuzha, Thiruvananthapuram, Thodupuzha, and Palakkad, Times of India reported. 

Activist Rahul Easwar created controversy by saying that the Sabarimala verdict was not about Law Vs Faith but Art 25 of Constitution - vs - Fake Ultra Feminism. 

Rahul Easwar is known for his stance on not allowing women to enter the Sabarimala Temple. He took part in the protests in October before the temple doors were scheduled to open and was also detained by the police. 

The Supreme Court has finished hearing the four fresh writ petitions and will soon hear the 49 review petitions. 

The chief justice said, "First the review petitions will be heard. After the orders on the review petitions, we will deal with these writ petitions. Please wait till 3 PM. If the review pleas are dismissed, we will take up the writ petitions. If they are allowed, we will tag the writ petitions with the review."

The bench said that if the review petitions are dismissed, they would hear the writ petitions. If the review petitions are approved, the writ petitions would be added to them. 

Kerala chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan extended his support to the Supreme Court and said that his government would do everything it could to implement the ruling. 

The Left Democratic Front government also blamed the BJP, VHP and other outfits for politicising the issue. 

Temple affairs minister Kadakampally Surendran on Monday told Hindustan Times, "The government has an open mind. We will call an all-party meet to discuss the Sabarimala issue. We will decide the date and other details after the Supreme Court decision on review pleas."

C Aryama Sundaram, the senior counsel who was set to appear on behalf of the Travancore Devaswom Board recused himself at the last minute and is appearing as one of the petitioners. 

Sundaram had allegedly been involved with one of the petitioners Nair Service Society. 

Sundaram will now be appearing for the Vishwa Hindu Parishad in front of the Supreme Court. 

 The three writ petitions will be heard in an open court while the hearings of 45 review pleas will be heard at 3 pm in the closed chambers of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi. 

On October 9, the top court declined a plea for an urgent hearing ahead of the temple door opening on October 17. The pleas said that the lifting of the ban was 'absolutely untenable and irrational'. 

On September 29, the Supreme Court ruled that women between the ages 10 and 50 should be allowed inside the Sabrimala shrine. 

The verdict which was 4:1 with Justice Indu Malhotra opposing the entry of women in the temple. 

The verdict said that barring the entry was like, "treating women as the children of a lesser God is to blink at the Constitution". It was a "form of untouchability."

It also said, "Relationship with God can't be defined by biology" and that banning the entry curbed their right to pray. 

Many outfits, including the Bharatiya Janata Party and several women's organisations, opposed the Supreme Court verdict to allow menstruating women in the temple. 

The Sabarimala Temple's board, Travancore Devaswom Board situated at Mavelikkara, also expressed their displeasure citing that the culture and traditions of the temple were being destroyed. 

The chief priest of Sabarimala made a statement that he will not allow women in the temple. 

A judgment passed by the Supreme Court can be analysed in a Review Petition. Those not happy with the court's judgment can file a review petition. 

Review petitions need to be filed within 30 days of the Supreme Court ruling. 

A writ petition is filed in either a High Court or Supreme Court when one feels that the fundamental rights are violated. A writ petition cannot be filed in a rank lower than the High Court. 

It can be filed directly in the High Court or Supreme Court by anyone who need not be directly related to the issue.