Read dissenting verdict on Sabarimala, our orders are not to be played with: Justice Nariman

The bench was apparently irked after senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and A M Singhvi pointed out that the ED in its plea had “resurrected” Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, which had been struck down by the Supreme Court last year. Singhvi also contended that the agency had copied parts of its petition from the petition filed in the case of former Union minister P Chidambaran as it referred to the accused as former home minister.

As Mehta — who appeared for the ED — tried to explain, Justice Nariman cut him short and said “this is not the way to deal with citizens’ rights”.

The Sabarimala remarks —- unconnected with the matter being heard — took everyone in the courtroom by surprise. Mehta responded that all orders of the court are taken seriously.

On September 28, 2018, the Supreme Court had in a 4:1 decision lifted age restrictions on the entry of women to Sabarimala temple. This led to protests and many petitions were filed seeking review of the judgment.

On Thursday, a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi in a 3:2 ruling decided to keep the review petitions pending, saying they raised several questions that needed to be considered by a larger bench.

Disagreeing with the majority view, which sought to club the Sabarimala matter with issues of Muslim, Parsi and Dawoodi Bohra women, Justices Nariman and D Y Chandrachud had said that the only “narrow question” before the bench was whether the Sabarimala ruling should be reviewed. Writing for both, Justice Nariman also took a stern view of the protests, and said that compliance with its orders was not an option, and told the Kerala government that “organised acts of resistance to thwart the implementation of this judgment must be put down firmly”.

The judges said “bonafide criticism of a judgment, albeit of the highest court of the land, is certainly permissible, but thwarting, or encouraging persons to thwart, the directions or orders of the highest court cannot be countenanced in our Constitutional scheme of things. After all, in India’s tryst with destiny, we have chosen to be wedded to the rule of law as laid down by the Constitution of India. Let every person remember that the ‘holy book’ is the Constitution of India, and it is with this book in hand that the citizens of India march together as a nation, so that they may move forward in all spheres of human endeavour to achieve the great goals set out by this ‘Magna Carta’ or Great Charter of India”.

The judgment said that by Article 141, the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts, which includes tribunals, within the territory of India.

The ED had approached the court against the October 23 order of the Delhi High Court order granting Shivakumar bail in the money-laundering case.