New Delhi: The government must read the "extremely important" dissenting verdict for implementation of the 2018 judgement allowing women of all ages to enter Kerala's Sabarimala temple and ensure its compliance, Justice R F Nariman of the Supreme Court said on Friday.
A five-judge Constitution bench, by a majority of 3:2, on Thursday referred to a larger seven-judge bench the pleas seeking review of the 2018 judgement allowing all women and girls to enter Sabarimala temple.
Justice Nariman, who penned the minority verdict on behalf of himself and Justice D Y Chandrachud, did not agree the majority view of referring the issue to the larger bench and reiterated that the court's 2018 verdict, allowing all women and girls into the shrine, be strictly implemented.
As the majority verdict, penned by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, kept review pleas pending for the 7-judge bench and did not stay the 2018 majority judgement, women of all age groups will be entitled to undertake the pilgrimage to the shrine.
On Friday, a bench headed by Justice Nariman which was hearing the appeal of Enforcement Directorate against grant of bail to Congress leader D K Shivakumar, observed that the government must read his "extremely important" dissenting verdict in Sabarimala case and ensure its compliance.
"Please tell your government to read the dissent judgement delivered in the Sabarimala case yesterday. This is extremely important. We cannot allow violation of our order and it has to be complied with. Inform your authority and the government to read it," he told Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was appearing for the ED in the case.
A bench of justices Nariman and S Ravindra Bhat dismissed the appeal of ED against the Delhi High Court's order granting bail to the Congress leader in a money laundering case.
When Justice Nariman told Mehta that the government has to comply with the orders passed by the apex court, the solicitor general said that the court should not have an impression that the government would not comply with the directives.
"I will beseech that please remove that impression," Mehta said. When Mehta tried to persuade the court that there should not be any such impression, Justice Nariman said, "Your persuasive power is great but you are not able to persuade us. That impression is embedded in my mind and it is irremovable."
