TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (5) TMI 723
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o. 39135-2018,Diary No. 39248-2018, Diary No. 39258-2018, Diary No. 39317-2018, W.P.(C) No. 1323/2018, W.P.(C) No. 1305/2018, Diary No. 39642-2018, R.P.(C) No. 3381/2018 in W.P.(C) No. 373/2006, Diary No. 40056-2018, Diary No. 40191-2018, Diary No. 40405-2018, Diary No. 40570-2018, Diary No. 40681-2018, Diary No. 40713-2018, Diary No. 40840-2018, Diary No. 40885-2018, Diary No. 40887-2018, Diary No. 40888-2018,Diary No. 40898-2018, R.P.(C) No. 3457/2018 in W.P.(C) No. 373/2006, Diary No. 40910-2018, Diary No. 40924-2018, Diary No. 40929- 2018, Diary No. 41005-2018, Diary No. 41091-2018, W.P.(C) No. 1339/2018, Diary No. 41264-2018, R.P.(C) No. 3473/2018 in W.P.(C) No. 373/2006, Diary No. 41395-2018, Diary No. 41586-2018, R.P.(C) No. 3480/2018 in W.P.(C) No. 373/2006, Diary No. 41896-2018, Diary No. 42085-2018, Diary No. 42264- 2018, Diary No. 42337-2018, MA No.3113/2018 in W.P.(C) No. 373/2006, Diary No. 44021-2018, Diary No. 44991-2018, Diary No. 46720-2018, Diary No. 47720-2018, Diary No. 2252-2019, R.P.(C) No. 345/2019 in W.P.(C) No. 373/2006, Diary No. 2998-2019, W.P.(C) No. 472/2019 Counsel for the Appearing Parties : Mr. K. Parasaran, Sr. Adv., Mr. K.V. Mohan, AOR, Mrs. Adi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... V. Susheatha, Adv., Mr. Mohan Parasaran, Sr. Adv., Mr. J.P. Cama, Sr. Adv., Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran, AOR, Mr. Ashish Kumar Upadhyay, Adv., Ms. V. Susheatha, Adv., Mr. P. Abinesh Karthik, Adv., Ms. V. Keerthana, Adv., Mr. Babul Kumar, Adv., Mr. Deepak N., Adv., Dr. K.P. Kylasanatha Pillay, Sr. Adv., Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran, AOR, Mr. Ashish Kumar Upadhyay, Adv., Mr. Y. Lokesh, Adv., Ms. V. Susheatha, Adv., Mr. P. Abinesh Karthik, Adv., Mr. Arun Singh, Adv., Ms. V. Keerthana, Adv., Mr. Anubhav Chaturvedi, Adv., Mr. Babul Kumar, Adv., Mr. Deepak N., Adv., Mr. J.P. Cama, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sreemuthan, Adv., Mr. Raghu Valan., Adv., Mr. Praneet Pranav, Adv., Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Bhakti Vardhan Singh, Adv., Mr. Praneet Pranav, Adv., Mr. Santosh Kumar, Adv., Mr. Vikas Singh Jangra, Adv., Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv., Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, Adv., Mr. Pawan Kishor, Adv., Mr. Soumyaranjan, Adv., Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran, AOR, Mr. Shishir Pinaki, AOR, Mr. Rajiv Kumar Sinha, Adv., Mr. Sajith. P warrier, AOR, Ms. Anu Priya, Adv., Mr. Anilendra Pandey, Adv., Mr. C.P. Singh, Adv., Mr. Karunakar Mahalik, Adv., Mr. R.K. Singh, Adv., Mr. Neeraj Singh, Adv., Mr. Robin Khokhar, AOR, Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Adv., Mr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gh & Co., Mr. Deepak Anand, AOR, Mrs. Hemlata Rawat, Adv., Mr. Surya Kant, Adv., Ms. Priyanka Tyagi, Adv., Mr. A.P. Mayee, AOR, Mr. A. Rajarajan, Adv., Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Adv., Ms. Charudatta Mahindrakar, Adv., Mr. Sanjeev Kr. Choudhary, Adv., Mr. Shishir Pinaki, Adv., Mr. Rajiv Kumar Sinha, Adv., Mr. N. Venkatraman, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sanand Ramakrishnan, AOR, Mr. Rajeev Mishra, Adv., Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sansriti Pathak, Adv., Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Adv., Mr. Suvidutt M.S., AOR, Mr. Vibhor Ahlawat, Adv., Mr. Ankit Tripathi, Adv., Mr. Abhishek, Adv., Ms. Smita Pandey, Adv., Mr. Yogesh Kumar, adv., Mr. Abhijeet Singh, Adv., Ms. Padhmalakshmi Iyendar, AAG, Mr. Vishal Meghwal, Adv., Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR, Petitioner-in-person, Mr. M.T. George, AOR, Mr. Karappankutty, Adv., Mrs. Susy Abraham, Adv., Mr. Johns George, Adv., Ms. Prachi Bajpai, AOR, Mr. J Sai Deepak, Adv., Mr. K.V. Muthu Kumar, AOR, Mr. Akshay R, Adv., Mr. Jose Abraham, AOR, Mr. Biju P Raman, AOR, Mr. Gopal Sankara Narayanan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Shrutanjaya Bhardwaj, Adv., Ms. Gayatri Verma, Adv., Mr. Vishal Sinha, Adv., Mr. Manoj Salvaraj, Adv., Ms. Aswathi M.K, AOR, Mr. Rabin Majumder, AOR, Mr. K.P. Kylashnatha Pill....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....opal, Ld. A.G. (NP), Mr. Tushar Mehta,Ld. S.G., Mr. K.M. Natraj, ASG, Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG, Mr. Siddharth Sinha, Adv., Mr. Om Prakash Shukla, Adv., Mr. Kanu Agarwal, Adv., Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv., Mr. Ankur Talwar, Adv., Mr. S.S. Raizvi, Adv., Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Adv., Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR, Mr. B.V. Balramdas, AOR, Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR, Mr. Narayan R. Panicker, Adv., Mr. Alok Singh, Adv., Mr. Abhishek Singh, Adv., Ms. Manju Sharma Jetley, AOR, Mr. Wills Mathews, Adv., Mr. Paul John Edison, Adv., Mr. Baij Nath Patel, Adv., Ms. Sweta, Adv., Ms. Romila, Adv., Mr. Shree Pal Singh, AOR, Mr. Shekhar Naphade, Sr. Adv., Mr. E.R. Kumar, Adv., Mr. Ashok Jain, Adv., Ms. Lakshmi Iyer, Adv., Mrs. Sonal Gupta, Adv., Mr. Tanya Chaudhary, Adv., Ms. Swati Bhardwaj, Adv., Ms. Aishwarya Dash, Adv., Mr. Sarthak Gaur, Adv., Ms. Anwesha Padhi, Adv., Mr. Raghav Bansal, Adv., Mr. Paritosh Arora, Adv., Ms. Nitika Pandey, Adv., Mr. Anup Jain, Adv., Mr. Mohit Bafna, Adv., Forr M/s Parekh & Co., Mr. V.R.S. Narayan Pillai, Adv., Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv., Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv., Mr. G.S.R. Subramoniam, Adv., Mr. G.S. Nair, Adv., Mr. VRS Narayan Pillai, Adv., Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Adv., Mr. A. Selvin Raja, Adv., Mr. Deepak Anand, AOR, Mr. C.U. Singh, Sr. Adv., Mr. Himanshu Sharma, AOR, Ms. Aditi Sharma, Adv., Mr. Darpan K.M., Adv., Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, Adv., Mr. C.S. Vaidhyanathan, Sr. Adv., Ms. Bhativardhan Singh, Adv., Mr. Praneet Pranav, adv., Mr. Santosh Kumar, Adv., Mr. Vikas Singh Jangra, Adv., Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv., Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, Adv., Mr. Pawan Kishor, Adv., Mr. Soumyaranjan, Adv., Mr. P.V. Yogeshwaran, AOR, Mr. Tushar Threja, Adv., Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv., Mr. G. Prakash, AOR, Mr. Jishnu M.L., Adv., Ms. Priyanka Prakash, Adv., Mrs. Beena Prakash, Adv., Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Awasthi M.K., Adv., Mr. Ravi Prakash Gupta, Adv., Ms. Shoba Ramamoorthy, AOR, Mr. Sriram J. Thalapathy, Adv., Mr. Shilp Vinod, Adv., Mr. Pushkin Rajkumar, Adv., Mr. Mohan Prasaran, Sr. Adv., Mr. M.A. Chinnasamy, Adv., Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran, Adv., Mr. V. Senthil Kumar, Adv., Mr. C. Rubavathi, Adv., Mr. P. Rajaram, Adv., Mr. Ashish Upadhyay, Adv., Mr. V. Keertana, Adv., Mr. Y. Lokesh, Adv., Mr. Babul Kumar, Adv., Ms. Prakrati Raj, Adv., Mohd. Naved, Adv., Mr. Anuj Saxena, Adv., Mr. Prakash Sharma, Adv., Mr. Prashant Sharma, Adv., Mr. Pankaj Sharma, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a Bansal, Adv., Mr. Kuldip Singh, Adv., Mr. Gaurav Yadava, Adv. ORDER S.A. BOBDE, CJI 1. Indian Young Lawyers Association filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 373 of 2006 challenging the validity of Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 (for short, "the 1965 Rules"). A further direction to the respondents therein to permit female devotees between the ages of 10 to 50 years to enter the Sabarimala temple without any restrictions was sought in the Writ Petition. By an order dated 30th October 2017, a three Judge bench of this Court referred the matter to a larger bench for resolution of the questions raised in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition was placed before a Constitution Bench consisting of five Judges. By a majority of 4:1, this Court allowed the Writ Petition on 28.09.2018. It was held by this Court that the devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a separate religious denomination and therefore cannot claim the benefit of Article 26 of the Constitution of India. This Court also concluded that exclusion of women between the ages of 10 to 50 years from entry into the temple is violative of Article 25 of the Constitu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an enquire into the issue of a particular practice is an integral part of the religion or religious practice of a particular religious denomination or should that be left exclusively to be determined by the head of the section of the religious group. (v) What is the meaning of the expression 'sections of Hindus' appearing in Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution. (vi) Whether the "essential religious practices" of a religious denomination, or even a section thereof are afforded constitutional protection under Article 26. (vii) What would be the permissible extent of judicial recognition to PILs in matters calling into question religious practices of a denomination or a section thereof at the instance of persons who do not belong to such religious denomination? The review petitions were adjourned till the determination of the questions by a larger bench. 4. R.F. Nariman and D.Y. Chandrachud JJ did not agree with the majority opinion, and rendered their separate dissenting opinion. The Review Petitions were dismissed by them as no ground for review was made out. The fresh Writ Petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution were also dismissed as not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issed, the reference is bad. Assuming that reference to a larger bench can be made in a review petition, it is permissible only after the review is granted and not during the pendency of a review petition. It was contended that hypothetical questions should not be answered by this Court. Another submission was to the effect that abstract questions of law without facts cannot be the subject matter of reference. The reference is vitiated as no reasons were recorded justifying the prima facie view that there is a conflict of opinion in the judgments in Shirur Mutt case (supra) and the Durgah Committee case (supra). Another submission was made that only appeals can be referred to a larger bench in accordance with the proviso to Article 145 (3) of the Constitution of India. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel supporting the reference submitted that there are no limits to the jurisdiction of this Court which is a superior Court of record. This Court can determine its own jurisdiction for exercise of its inherent powers. This Court can make any order which is necessary to do complete justice under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. The power of this Court cannot be fettered by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... criminal proceeding except on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record. The application for review shall be accompanied by a certificate of the Advocate on Record certifying that it is the first application for review and is based on the grounds admissible under the Rules." 12. It is clear from a plain reading of Order XLVII, Rule 1 that there are no restrictions on the power of this Court to review its judgment or order. The exceptions to the general power of review relate to review of civil proceedings which can be entertained only on grounds mentioned in Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and to review of criminal proceedings which can be entertained only on the ground of an error apparent on the face of record. It is clear that there is no fetter in the exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court in review petitions of judgments or orders arising out of proceedings other than civil and criminal proceedings. 13. Part II of the Supreme Court Rules deals with Civil Appeals, Criminal Appeals and Special Leave Petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution. Order XXI refers to Special Leave Petitions (Civil) and Order XXII cover....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ever himself or by any other person on his behalf manufactures for sale, sells, stocks or exhibits for sale or distributes- (a) any drug- (i) deemed to be misbranded under clause (a), clause (b), clause (e), clause (d), clause (f) or clause (g) of section 17 or adulterated under section 17B; or (ii) without a valid licence as required under clause (c) of section 18." shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine; Provided that the Court may, for any special reasons to be recorded in writing, impose a sentence of imprisonment of less than one year". 16. It was held that the words used in Section 27 namely, "manufacture for sale", "sells" have a comma after each clause but there is no comma after the clause "stocks or exhibits for sale". The absence of any comma after the words 'stocks' clearly indicates that the clause "stocks or exhibits for sale" is an indivisible whole. 17. Construction of Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules should be made by giving due weight to the punctuation mark 'comma' after the wo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... giving the widest freedom to a Court of law so that it may do justice to the parties in the case [Babu Lal vs. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal [1982] 1 SCC 525]. There cannot be any doubt that the pending review petition falls within the purview of the expression "other proceeding". The reference has been made in the course of pending review petitions. 22. In addition, there is no fetter on the exercise of discretion of this Court in referring questions of law to a larger bench in review petitions. Being a superior Court of record, it is for this Court to consider whether any matter falls within its jurisdiction or not. Unlike a Court of limited jurisdiction, the superior Court of record is entitled to determine for itself questions about its own jurisdiction [Powers, Privileges and Immunities of State Legislatures, In re (Keshav Singh case), (1965) 1 SCR 413. See also Naresh Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, (1966) 3 SCR 744]. 23. No matter is beyond the jurisdiction of a superior Court of record unless it is expressly shown to be so, under the provisions of the Constitution. In the absence of any express provision in the Constitution, this Court being a superior Court of record has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n any pending proceeding before this Court, including the instant review proceedings, to meet the ends of justice. 26. By placing reliance on a judgment of this Court in Central Bank of India v. Workmen [(1960) 1 SCR 200], it was submitted that this Court should not give speculative opinions or answer hypothetical questions. The reference of questions of law pertaining to the scope of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India are of utmost importance requiring an authoritative pronouncement by a larger bench, especially in light of the view of the reference Bench that there is a conflict between the Court's judgments in Shirur Mutt (supra) and Durgah Committee (supra). An objection similar to the one in this case was taken in Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India [[1992] Supp (3) SCC 217], which was rejected on the ground that the reference in that case was made to finally settle the legal position relating to reservations. Therefore, the reference in this case cannot be said to be suffering from any jurisdictional error. 27. Regarding the contention that pure questions of law cannot be referred to a larger bench, it was argued that it is not possible for the Court to decide....