Sabarimala Verdict

Justice R F Nariman, who penned the minority view on behalf of himself and Justice D Y Chandrachud, said the Constitution places a "non-negotiable obligation" on authorities to enforce the judgements as it was necessary to preserve rule of law and directed strict compliance of the September 2018 decision allowing girls and women of all ages to enter the hill-top shrine in Kerala.

Sabarimala Verdict highlights: Case referred to 7-judge bench; no clarity on whether women will be allowed entry

Live Updates: No clarity yet if Supreme Court's September ruling, allowing women to enter the temple, has been stayed

Sabarimala verdict: After Ayodhya, what is at stake in this case?

The difference in the readings of the top court in 2018 and 2019 could hold clues to how the Sabarimala verdict will play out tomorrow

Legal Matters | Ayodhya verdict could provide a template for future

The broadening perspective of the Supreme Court about the contextual aspect in the Ayodhya case has implications for other cases as well. This implies that issues cannot be considered in isolation and brings into play factors that may have hitherto been considered extraneous.

Supreme Court commences hearing on pleas seeking review of Sabarimala verdict

Senior advocate K Prasaran, appearing for Nair Service Society, opened the arguments before a five-judge bench and sought setting aside of the verdict.

SC to decide on October 23 date for hearing review petitions on Sabarimala verdict

A bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice S K Kaul considered the submissions of lawyer Mathews J Nedumpara that his petition seeking review of the constitutional bench judgment be listed for urgent hearing.