×

Supreme Court Data Portal

History of Constitution Benches

Under Article 145(3) of the Constitution, matters ‘involving a ­substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution’ are required to be decided by a minimum of five judges. These benches of the Supreme Court, often involving five, seven or nine judges, are called Constitution Benches.

Over the course of India’s history, these Constitution Benches have settled key questions involving individual rights and separation of powers thereby fundamentally shaping India’s rule of law framework. Some key issues such as the immutable nature of the fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution (Kesavananda Bharti v State of Kerala), limitation on the imposition of President’s Rule (S.R. Bommai v Union of India), clarifications on the law on personal liberties (Maneka Gandhi v Union of India) and deciding how territorial boundaries of India’s states should be demarcated (In re: Berubari Union) have been decided by Constitution Benches.

In the recent past too, they have been the harbinger of progressive change. Some of these landmark cases involve the decriminalisation of homosexuality (Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India), the declaration of the right to privacy as a fundamental right (Justice (Retd.) K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India) and the declaration of the ban on women of all ages from entering the Sabarimala temple as violative of their fundamental rights (Indian Young Lawyers Association v State of Kerala).

Previous research on Constitution Benches

While a significant amount of literature has been individually published about the jurisprudence these landmark cases helped create, empirical research on the functioning of these benches is few and far between. Recognising this lacuna, Nick Robinson and others conducted a study, a decade ago, examining all the constitution benches that had been set up since India’s independence until the end of 2009. The research studied voting patterns, the length of judgments, foreign citations and winning party among others. In the recent past, shorter pieces that examine the judgments delivered by these benches have also been published. There is also an ongoing project which studies the Supreme Court, which in its research also touches upon constitution benches. However, none of the above studies comprehensively examine all the cases pending before these benches or conduct an analysis of the associated aggregate statistics. This Constitution Bench Pendency Project is an attempt to plug this gap.

Pendency before the Constitution Bench

As a part of the process of consolidating the cases before it, the Supreme Court now regularly publishes statistics on the number of pending cases, including the number of pending constitution bench cases. These numbers are also bifurcated into the number of main and connected matters. The itemised list on the other hand, is available at the terminal cause list published on the website. Unfortunately however, during the course of our research we found that the list of cases on the terminal causelist fluctuated sporadically without any of the missing cases being heard in court. To ensure a fixity and authority in numbers, we filed an RTI application with the Supreme Court. The results in the present portal reflect the cases pending before the Supreme Court as on 17 November 2022. However, cases disposed of till 7 November, 2022 have been excluded from the dataset. A culmination of this exercise found that there are 45 main constitution bench matters pending before the Supreme Court. Since quite often, one case might dispose of multiple connected matters, a total of 612 cases are pending before these benches.

The JALDI Constitution Bench Tracker

The present tracker examines these cases and hopes to provide the user an in-depth understanding of each of these cases in an accessible form. For every case, the portal explainsthe timelines of events and orders, information on facts, questions of law, arguments, precedents and legislations under challenge. The further readings section hopes to act as a resource for those individuals looking to explore these cases in even more detail. The portal also charts the tagged matters and the pendencies. Since the research mentioned above has found that the number of these benches has consistently dwindled over time, we hope that this portal highlights the need for this particular aspect of the Supreme Court’s pendency to be addressed with gravity. We think that these cases require special emphasis since they involve critical questions of law that only the Supreme Court in its judgment and eminence can resolve.

×

Acknowledgments

A large team worked to turn the Constitution Bench Pendency Project (“Project”) into a reality. Prashant Reddy T. (former Lead, Justice, Access and Lowering Delays in India Initiative (JALDI) at Vidhi) and Nayantara Vohra (former Associate Fellow, JALDI) were part of the initial stages of this project including scoping the cases from the terminal list and collating the orders from the Supreme Court website. 

Apoorva (Research Fellow) and Vaidehi Misra (Senior Resident Fellow), under the guidance of Deepika Kinhal (Team Lead and Senior Resident Fellow) led the project in conceptualising and designing the process for creating summaries of these cases. 

Along with them, Aditya Ranjan and Shreya Tripathy (Research Fellows) and Reshma Sekhar (Senior Resident Fellow) helped review the cases that were summarised by the Kautilya Fellows. Vidhi’s Kautilya Society chapters in various law schools across the country are designed to work both independently as well as with Vidhi researchers on real-world research projects.

The following Kautilya Fellows were instrumental to the preparation of this project and the JALDI team would like to thank them for their immense contribution. They are: Abin Thomas Alex, Adhipatya Singh, Akanksha Yadav, Amrashaa Singh, Ankita Gupta, Anukriti Randev, Arjun Butani, Prajwal Venkatesh, Sanskruti Yagnik, Shivani Jaideep Karnik and Soumya Jain. Sanjeev Gumpenapalli, an intern at Vidhi Karnataka also assisted in the research.

Naxcent has helped design and execute our ideas into the format of the Portal. Finally, the JALDI team would like to thank ATECF and the Tree of Life Foundation for the support and grant under which this Project has been funded. 


×

Raw Case Summaries

Case Link to Summary
Kantaru Rajeevaru v. Indian Young Lawyers Association
Mineral Area Development Authority etc. v. M/S Steel Authority of India
Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra
State of Uttar Pradesh v. M/s. Lalta Prasad Vaish
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jai Bir Singh
Aligarh Muslim University v. Naresh Agarwal
Arjun Flour Mills v. State of Orissa
N. Ravi v. Speaker, Legislative Assembly, Chennai
Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Limited
The State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh
Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India
Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, Ministry of Law and Justice Secretary
Ashok Kumar Jain v. Union of India
Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India
Assam Public Works v. Union of India
Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College
C.B.I. v. Dr. R.R. Kishore
Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra
Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India
Karmanya Singh Sareen v. Union of India
Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh
M/s Shanti Fragrances v. Union of India
Mukesh Kumar v. V. K. Singh
Pyare Lal v. State of Haryana
Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan
Sita Soren v. Union of India
State of Andhra Pradesh v. B. Archana Reddy
State of Punjab v. Sahil Mittal
State of West Bengal v. Paschim Banga BK Samity
Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab
Suvarna Paka Jagga Rao v. Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao
Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court
Union of India v. Union Carbide Corporation
Union of India v. Preeti Agarwal
Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India


Kantaru Rajeevaru v. Indian Young Lawyers Association

C.A. No. 3358/2018

Timeline

  1. Date of filing the writ petition
  2. Judgment of the 5 Judge Bench in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. The State of Kerala
  3. Reference to a larger bench (of not less than 7 Judges) for limited questions of law while keeping the review petition pending
    08-10-2018
  4. 9 Judge bench upheld the referral order
  5. Last date of hearing
    Current Status: To be relisted

Bench Composition

Bench Status

Last listed before
Hon’ble Justice
Ashok Bhushan
Hon’ble Justice L.
Nageswara Rao
Hon’ble Justice
S. Abdul Nazeer
Hon’ble Justice
B.R. Gavai
Hon’ble Justice
R. Subhash Reddy
Hon’ble Justice
Surya Kant
Hon’ble Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
Hon’ble Justice Sharad Arvind Bobde
Hon’ble Justice R. Banumathi
×

Hon’ble Justice Ashok Bhushan

  • Born on 5th July, 1956 in Jaunpur (district), Uttar Pradesh to Late Shri Chandrama Prasad Srivastava and Smt. Kalavathi Srivasthava. Graduated in Arts in the year 1975, Obtained Law Degree in 1st Division from the Allahabad University in the year 1979.
  • Enrolled as an Advocate with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh on 6th April, 1979. Thereafter, started practice on Civil and Original side at Allahabad High Court till the elevation to the Bench.
  • Worked as Standing Counsel of Allahabad University, State Mineral Development Corporation Limited and several Municipal Boards, Banks & Education Institutions. Elected as Senior Vice-President of the Allahabad High Court Bar Association. Elevated as permanent Judge of the Allahabad High Court on 24th April, 2001. Served as Chairman, Higher Judicial Service Committee and headed several other committees.
  • Sworn in as Judge of the High Court of Kerala on 10.07.2014, and took charge as Acting Chief Justice on 01.08.2014. Sworn in as Chief Justice on 26.03.2015.
  • Elevated as Judge of the Supreme Court of India on 13th May, 2016.

Hon’ble Justice L. Nageswara Rao

  • Born on 08.06.1957 at Chirala, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh..
  • Did his B.Com., B.L., from Nagarjuna University, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh
  • Enrolled as an Advocate on 29.07.1982 at Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh.
  • From July, 1982 to January, 1984 practiced at the District Court, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh.
  • From January, 1985 to December, 1994 practiced at the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, at Hyderabad.
  • From January 1995 to May, 2016 practiced at the Supreme Court of India.
  • Designated as a Senior Advocate by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in December, 2000.
  • Served as Additional Solicitor General of India from August 2003 to May, 2004 and again from 26.08.2013 to 18.12.2014.
  • Appointed as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India on 13.05.2016.

Hon’ble Justice S. Abdul Nazeer

  • Born on 05.01.1958. Enrolled as an Advocate on 18.02.1983. Practised in the High Court of Karnataka
  • Appointed as an Additional Judge of the Karnataka High Court on 12.05.2003 and as a Permanent Judge on 24/09/2004
  • Elevated as Judge of the Supreme Court of India on 17th February, 2017.

Hon’ble Justice B.R. Gavai

  • Born on 24th November, 1960 at Amravati.
  • Joined Bar on 16th March, 1985. Worked with late Bar. Raja S. Bhonsale, former Advocate General and Judge of High Court, till 1987.
  • Practiced independently at Bombay High Court from 1987 to 1990.
  • After 1990, practised mainly before Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court. Practised in Constitutional Law and Administrative Law.
  • Was Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporation of Nagpur, Amravati Municipal Corporation and Amravati University.
  • Appeared regularly for various autonomous bodies and Corporations like SICOM, DCVL etc. and various Municipal Councils in Vidarbha region.
  • Was appointed as Assistant Government Pleader and Additional Public Prosecutor in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, from August, 1992 to July, 1993.
  • Was appointed as Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor for Nagpur Bench on 17th January, 2000. Was elevated as Additional Judge of the High Court on 14th November, 2003.
  • Became a permanent Judge of the Bombay High Court on 12th November, 2005
  • Presided over Benches having all types of assignments at the Principal Seat at Mumbai as well as Benches at Nagpur, Aurangabad and Panaji. Elevated as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India on 24th May, 2019. Due to retire on 23rd November, 2025.

Hon’ble Justice R. Subhash Reddy

  • Born in the year 1957 in an agricultural family in Kamaram Village of Chinna Shankarampet Mandal, Medak District.
  • Had his primary education in Upper Primary School and Higher Education in Zilla Parishad High School, Sankarampet, Medak District. Passed Intermediate and graduation from Andhra Vidyalaya College (AV College), Hyderabad. Obtained Law Degree from the University College of Law, Osmania University, Hyderabad.
  • Enrolled as an Advocate on the rolls of the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh on 30/10/1980 and joined the Chambers of Sri Justice B. Subhasan Reddy (As Advocate as he then was).
  • Actively Practised in Civil, Criminal, Constitutional and almost all other branches of Law. Had developed his independent practice with in short span of time and extensively dealt with number of cases covering all branches of Law.
  • Deeply interested in philosophy, culture, music and education.
  • Was standing Counsel for premier institutions like S.V. University and Jawaharlal Nehru Technogical University etc.
  • Elected unanimously as the President of the AP High Court Advocates Association for the year 2001-2002.
  • Elevated as Additional Judge of High Court of Andhra Pradesh on 02.12.2002.
  • Sworn in as Judge of High Court of A.P. w.e.f. 24.06.2004.
  • Continued as Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad till 12th February 2016.
  • Elevated as Chief Justice, High Court of Gujarat on 13th February 2016.
  • Elevated as Judge, Supreme Court of India on 2nd November 2018.

Hon’ble Justice Surya Kant

  • Born on 10th February, 1962 at Hisar (Haryana) in a middle class family
  • Graduated from Government Post Graduate College, Hisar in 1981. Earned Bachelor's degree in Law in 1984 from Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak. Started practicing Law at the District Court, Hisar in 1984
  • Shifted to Chandigarh in 1985 to practice in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Specialised in Constitutional, Service and Civil matters
  • Represented a number of Universities, Boards, Corporations, Banks and also the High Court itself. Earned distinction of being appointed the youngest Advocate General of Haryana on July 7, 2000. Designated as Senior Advocate in March, 2001.
  • Held the office of Advocate General, Haryana till his elevation as a permanent Judge to the Punjab and Haryana High Court on January 09, 2004. Was nominated as a Member of the Governing Body of National Legal Services Authority on February 23, 2007 for two consecutive terms till February 22, 2011.
  • Presently a Member of various Committees of Indian Law Institute - a deemed university under the aegis of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Earned another distinction of standing First Class First in his Master's degree in Law in 2011 from the Directorate of Distance Education, Kurukshetra University, Kurkshetra
  • Has also organised and attended various prestegious National/International Conferences. Assumed charge of the office of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh with effect from 05th October, 2018. Elevated as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India on 24th May, 2019. Due to retire on 09th February, 2027.

Hon’ble Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

  • Born on 5th May, 1958.
  • Enrolled as an Advocate on 05.09.1980.
  • Served as Vice-Chairman of Karnataka State Bar Council from 1991 to 1993 and as Chairman of Karnataka State Bar Council during 1995 and 1996. Served as State Public Prosecutor of Karnataka State from 1999 to 2002.
  • Appointed as Additional Judge of the Karnataka High Court on 12.05.2003 and as Permanent Judge on 24.09.2004. Was the President of Bangalore Mediation Centre and Karnataka Judicial Academy.
  • On transfer, sworn-in as Judge, High Court of Kerala. Assumed charge as Acting Chief Justice on 01.08.2016. Sworn in as the Chief Justice of the High Court of Kerala on 22.09.2016.
  • Elevated as Judge of the Supreme Court of India on 17th February, 2017.

Hon’ble Justice Sharad Arvind Bobde

  • Born on 24.04.1956 at Nagpur, Maharashtra, son of Shri Arvind Shriniwas Bobde.
  • Took B.A. and LL.B. Degrees from Nagpur University. Enrolled on the Roll of the Bar Council of Maharashtra in 1978.
  • Practiced Law at the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court with appearances at Bombay before the Principal Seat and before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India for over 21 years. Designated as Senior Advocate in 1998.
  • Elevated to the Bench of the Bombay High Court on 29th March, 2000, as Additional Judge.
  • Sworn in as Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court on 16th October, 2012.
  • Elevated as a Judge of Supreme Court of India on 12th April, 2013.
  • Sworn in as Chief Justice of India on 18th November, 2019.
  • Due to retire on 23rd April, 2021.

Hon’ble Justice R. Banumathi

  • Born on 20.07.1955. Enrolled on 07.01.1981. Practised in Mofussil Courts at Tirupattur, Krishnagiri and Harur, State of Tamilnadu. Entered Tamilnadu Higher Judicial Service as a direct recruit District Judge in 1988 and worked as District and Sessions Judge in various Districts of the State.
  • Elevated as a Judge of High Court of Madras on 03.04.2003.
  • As a Member of Board of Governors and as President of Board of Governors in State Judicial Academy, played a key role in organising systematic Training Programmes for judicial officers and staff members. Authored the Book "Hand Book of Civil and Criminal Courts Management and Use of Computers" for guidance of District Judiciary and published Hand Books for the guidance of Judicial Ministerial Staff.
  • Executive Chairman of the Tamilnadu State Legal Services with effect from 15.07.2013. Chairman of Madras High Court Legal Services Committee from 21.02.2011 to 20.01.2012 and actively involved in Legal Services and organizing Lok Adalats
  • Sworn as the Chief Justice of Jharkhand High Court on 16.11.2013. Instrumental in improving the infrastructure of the District Judiciary, recruitment and filling up vacancies of Ministerial Staff. Published Hand Books for guidance of judicial officers and staff members.
  • ● Elevated as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India on 13.08.2014.

Background

Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple (or commonly known as the Sabarimala Temple), located in Kerala, is a place of worship of Lord Aiyappa. This deity is considered celibate and therefore, since time immemorial, menstruating women between the age of 10 and 50 years have been denied entry into the temple.
When a challenge to this practice was filed, the Kerala High Court held that the exclusion was constitutional and justified, as the practice had been a long-standing custom.
In 2006, the Indian Young Lawyers Association filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the validity of Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 which restricted the entry of women into the temple. The Association argued that the custom violated the female worshipper’s right to equality under Article 14 and the freedom of religion under Article 25.
In 2018, a Constitution Bench with 4:1 majority, on the basis of the same rationale, allowed the entry of women irrespective of age into the Temple. It also struck down the state legislation and deemed it unconstitutional
As a consequence, around 65 review petitions challenging the verdict were filed. The petitioners include the National Ayyappa Devotees (Women) Association, the Nair Service Society, and the All Kerala Brahmins Association.
Since the decision in this main case would have implications on other cases involving religious practices, such as muslim women’s right to pray in mosques, the Parsi women’s right to enter a Fire Temple after having married a non-Parsi, and the practice by the Dawoodi Bohra community of female genital mutilation the Constitution bench decided to refer certain questions of law to a larger bench. In the meanwhile, the decision in the review petitions filed against the 2018 judgment were kept pending.
In February 2020, a 9 Judge bench upheld the power of the Supreme Court to refer certain questions to a larger bench, even in the case of a review petitions.

Questions of law

1

What is the scope and ambit of the right to freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution of India?

2

What is the inter-play between the rights of persons under Article 25 of the Constitution of India and rights of religious denomination under Article 26 of the Constitution of India?

3

Is the right of a religious denomination under Article 26 of the Constitution of India subject to other provisions of Part III of the Constitution of India, apart from public order, morality and health?

4

What is the scope and extent of the word ‘morality’ under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India and is it meant to include Constitutional morality?

5

What is the scope and extent of judicial review with regard to a religious practice under Article 25 of the Constitution of India?

6

What is the meaning of expression ‘Sections of Hindus’ occurring in Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution of India?

7

Can a person not belonging to a religious denomination or religious group question a practice of that religious denomination or religious group by filing a public interest litigation?
Appellant’s Arguments
  • In the 5 Judge bench case, the petitioners argued that the restrictive practice violated women’s fundamental rights under Article 14, 15, 25 and 26 of Indian Constitution.

  • The followers of the Lord Ayyappa temple did not constitute a religious denomination under Article 26 of the Constitution as - the puja and other religious ceremonies performed by them were common with other Hindu temples and because the followers did not have a common faith or distinct name. Slight variations in rituals and ceremonies did not make them a separate religious denomination.

  • Even if devotees of Lord Ayyappa constituted a religious denomination, the restriction on women could not be considered an essential religious practice, especially since there is no scriptural evidence to suggest their exclusion.

  • Article 25 declares that all persons are ‘equally’ entitled to freely practise religion, which implies not just inter-faith but intra-faith parity. Therefore, the primary right under Article 25(1) is a non-discriminatory right and is available to both men and women professing the same faith.

  • Article 25(2)(b) is not a mere enabling provision but is a substantive right as it creates an exception for laws that enable social reform and therefore intends to abhor exclusionary practices such as restrictive entry to a class of people.

  • The implementation of the practice amounts to involuntary disclosure by women of both their menstrual status and age which amounts to forced disclosure that consequently violates the right to dignity and privacy under Article 21.

  • The constitutional intent in keeping the understanding of untouchability in Article 17 open-textured was to abolish all practices based on the notion of purity and pollution. Untouchability should therefore not be understood in a pedantic sense but in the context of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 to include any exclusion based on the notions of purity and pollution.
Respondent’s Arguments
  • The devotees of Lord Ayyappa constitute a religious denomination because they follow Ayyappa Dharma. All the devotees are called as Ayyappans and all female eligible devotees are called as Malikapurams.

  • The Respondents pointed out that as held in The Constitution grants to every religious denomination the right to determine its own rules and the primary reason for not allowing the entry of women to the temple is on account of the naisthika brahmacharya nature of the deity Lord Ayyapan.

  • The practice has been long standing since time immemorial without any interruption so it becomes usage and custom which is pre-constitutional. Article 13(3)(b) includes custom or usage and restriction on the entry of women is a part of the essential practise of this temple.

  • Article 15, 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution are not violated as the restriction is only in respect of women of a particular age group and not women as a class.

  • Article 26 is only subject to public order, morality and health and not to other provisions of Part III. Therefore, the fundamental right of religious denomination is not subject to Articles 14 or 15.

Court's reasoning

The reference was maintainable since under Article 137 read with Article 141 and 142, had wide powers to correct the position of law. The Court was not hindered by the limitation of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, since writ petitions are not ‘civil proceedings’ as specified in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
The followers of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a religious denomination and come under the class of Hindus. The court took into consideration the ‘essential practices test’ and decided that allowing women in the Sabarimala temple will not result in any alteration or change in the fundamental concept of the Hindu religion.
Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 was violative of the Constitution and the parent Act. Sections 3 and 4 of the Act were introduced with the intentional goal of introducing reform into public Hindu places to make them more open. Rule 3(b) subverted this intent.

Sr No. Cause Title Case No. Date of Institution Date of Tagging Pending For*

1

Shylaja Vijayan v. State of Kerala

C.A. No. 37946/2018

08-10-2018

13-11-2018

2

People For Dharma v. State of Kerala

C.A. No. 38135/2018

09-10-2018

13-11-2018

3

Inter Continental Association of Lawyers v. State of Kerala Chief Secretary

C.A. No. 38136/2018

09-10-2018

13-11-2018

4

World Hindu Mission v. State of Kerala Chief Secretary

C.A. No. 38764/2018

11-10-2018

13-11-2018

5

Usha Nandini v. Indian Young Lawyers Association

C.A. No. 38769/2018

11-10-2018

13-11-2018

6

Samastha Nair Vanitha Samajam Women Wing of S.N.S. v. Indian Young Lawyers Association

C.A. No. 38907/2018

12-10-2018

13-11-2018

7

S. Jaya Raj Kumar State President Vishva Hindu Parishad Kerala State Unit v. State of Kerala

C.A. No. 39023/2018

12-10-2018

13-11-2018

8

Deepak Prabhakaran v. State Of Kerala

C.A. No. 39317/2018

13-10-2018

13-11-2018

9

All Kerala Brahmins Association v. Indian Young Lawyers Association

C.A. No. 39135/2018

13-10-2018

13-11-2018

10

Dr. P.K. Shibu v. Indian Young Lawyers Association

C.A. No. 39248/2018

13-10-2018

13-11-2018

11

Akhil Bharteeya Ayyappa Dharma Prachar Sabha v. Indian Young Lawyers Association General Secretary

C.A. No. 39258/2018

13-10-2018

13-11-2018

12

Akhil Bhartiya Sabarimala Ayyappa Seva Samjam v. State of Kerala

C.A. No. 39642/2018

22-10-2018

13-11-2018

13

Prayar Gopalakrishnan v. Indian Young Lawyers Association

C.A. No. 40056/2018

24-10-2018

13-11-2018

14

All Religiour Affinity Movement v. Indian Young Lawyers Association Secretary Ms. Bhakti Pasrija

C.A. No. 40191/2018

24-10-2018

13-11-2018

15

Global Nair Sewa Samaj v. Indian Young Lawyers Association General Secretary Ms. Bhakti Pasrija

C.A. No. 40405/2018

25-10-2018

13-11-2018

16

Travancore Devaswom Employees Front Represented By The President v. Indian Young Lawyers Association General Secretary Ms. Bhakti Pasrija

C.A. No. 40570/2018

26-10-2018

13-11-2018

17

Rajitha T.O. v. Indian Young Lawyers Association General Secretary Ms. Bhakti Pasrija

C.A. No. 40681/2018

27-10-2018

13-11-2018

18

Rajashree Chaudhuri v. Indian Young Lawyers Association General Secretary Ms. Bhakti Pasrija

C.A. No. 40713/2018

27-10-2018

13-11-2018

19

Malabar Kshthra Trustee Samithi v.

Indian Young Lawyers Association General Secretary Ms. Bhakti Pasrija

C.A. No. 40840/2018

29-10-2018

13-11-2018

20

Vaikkom Gopakumar v. Indian Young Lawyers Association General Secretary, Ms. Bhakti Pasrija

C.A. No. 40885/2018

29-10-2018

13-11-2018

21

M/S Athma Divine Trust v. Indian Young Lawyers Association General Secretary Ms. Bhakti Pasrija

C.A. No. 40887/2018

29-10-2018

13-11-2018

22

Mohanan Mavilakandy v. Indian Young Lawyers Association General Secretary Ms. Bhakti Pasrija

C.A. No. 40888/2018

29-10-2018

13-11-2018

23

K. Uma Devi v. Indian Young Lawyers Association General Secretary

C.A. No. 40898/2018

29-10-2018

13-11-2018

24

Aathmaartham Trust v. Indian Young Lawyers Association General Secretary Ms. Bhakti Pasrija

C.A. No. 40910/2018

29-10-2018

13-11-2018

25

Mr. Sathish Nair v. Indian Young Lawyers Association General Secretary

C.A. No. 40924/2018

29-10-2018

13-11-2018

26

Anish K. Varkey v. Indian Young Lawyers Association General Secretary, Ms. Bhakti Pasrija

C.A. No. 40929/2018

29-10-2018

13-11-2018

27

Sabrimala Achara Samrakshna Samiti President v. Indian Young Lawyers Association Through Its Genl. Secy. Bhakti Pasrija General Secretary

C.A. No. 41005/2018

30-10-2018

13-11-2018

28

Sreemithun v. State Of Kerala Chief Secretary

C.A. No. 41091/2018

30-10-2018

13-11-2018

29

Dr. S.K. Kharventhan Individual v. State Of Kerala Chief Secretary

C.A. No. 41264/2018

31-10-2018

13-11-2018

30

Kerala Munnokka Sabha (Regd.) v. Indian Young Lawyers Association

C.A. No. 41395/2018

31-10-2018

13-11-2018

31

P.C. George v. Indian Young Lawyers Association General Secretary

C.A. No. 41586/2018

01-11-2018

13-11-2018

32

N. Sree Prakash v. Indian Young Lawyers Association General Secretary Ms. Bhakti Pasrija

C.A. No. 41896/2018

02-11-2018

13-11-2018

33

Peruvammoozhy Aalinchuvadu Sree Ayyapan Kovil v. State of Kerala

C.A. No. 42085/2018

03-11-2018

13-11-2018

34

B. Radhakrishna Menon v. Indian Young Lawyers Association General Secretary Ms. Bhakti Pasrija

C.A. No. 42264/2018

12-11-2018

13-11-2018

35

Yogakshema Sabha v. Indian Young Lawyers Association General Secretary Ms. Bhakti Pasrija

C.A. No. 42337/2018

12-11-2018

13-11-2018

36

Umesh B N v. Indian Young Lawyers Association General Secretary Ms. Bhakti Pasrija

C.A. No. 44021/2018

26-11-2018

NA

37

Hari Shankar S. v. Indian Young Lawyers Association

C.A. No. 44991/2018

30-11-2018

NA

38

Sree Narayana Guru Charitabale Trust Through Its Secretary Anil Neerazhi v. State of Kerala

C.A. No. 46720/2018

13-12-2018

NA

39

Antharashtra Hindu Parishad v. State of Kerala Chief Secretary

C.A. No. 47720/2018

20-12-2018

NA

40

Poora Premi Sangam v. State of Kerala

C.A. No. 2252/2019

16-01-2019

NA

41

Tamil Nadu Centre For Public Interest Litigation K.K. Ramesh, Managing Trustee v. State of Kerala Chief Secretary

C.A. No. 2998/2019

22-01-2019

NA

42

Promotion Of Human Rights Convention (Phrc) v. State of Kerala

C.A. No. 12161/2019

02-04-2019

NA

43

Goolrokh M. Gupta v. Mr. Burjor Pardiwala (Dead)

SLP(C) No. 18889/2012

28-06-2012

13-01-2020

44

Sunita Tiwari v. Union of India

WP(C) No. 286/2017

07-01-2017

13-01-2020

45

G. Vijayakumar v. State of Kerala

C.A. No. 38203/2018

09-10-2018

NA

46

Shylaja Vijayan v. State of Kerala

C.A. No. 39456/2018

22-10-2018

NA

47

Nair Service Society v. Indian Young Lawyers Association

R.P.(C) No. 3359/2018

08-10-2018

13-11-2018

48

S. Jaya Raj Kumar (Sjr Kumar) v. Union of India

C.A. No. 39427/2018

22-10-2018

NA

49

Shabrimala Aiyappa Seva Samajam v. Indian Young Lawyers Association

C.A. No. 38993/2018

 

R.P.(C) No. 3377/2018

12-10-2018

13-11-2018

50

Kerala Kshethra Samrakshanasamithi Rep. By Its State President v. State of Kerala Chief Secretary

C.A. No. 38671/2018

 

R.P.(C) No. 003379/2018

11-10-2018

13-11-2018

51

Mathrua Samithi of Kerala Kshethra Samarakshana Samithi v. State of Kerala Chief Secretary

C.A. No. 38656/2018

 

R.P.(C) No. 003380/ 2018

11-10-2018

13-11-2018

52

Nair Service Society v. Indian Young Lawyers Association General Secretary Ms. Bhakti Pasrija

C.A. No. 39986/2018

 

R.P.(C) No. 003381/ 2018

23-10-2018

13-11-2018

53

The Chief Thanthri v. Indian Young Lawyers Association General Secretary Ms. Bhakti Pasrija

C.A. No. 38692/2018

 

R.P.(C) No. 003444/2018

11-10-2018

13-11-2018

54

The Pandalam Kottaram Nirvahaka Sangham v. State of Kerala

C.A. No. 38174/2018

 

R.P.(C) No. 3449/2018  

09-10-2018

13-11-2018

55

Akhil Bharathiya Malayalee Sangh v.

Union of India

C.A. No. 41146/2018

 

W.P.(C) No. 1339/2018

30-10-2018

 

56

All Kerala Brahmin Federation v.

Indian Young Lawyers Association General Secretary Ms. Bhakti Pasrija

C.A. No. 40905/2018

 

R.P.(C) No. 3457/2018

29-10-2018

13-11-2018

57

Akhil Bharathiya Malayalee Sangh General Secretary v. State of Kerala

C.A. No. 38746/2018

 

R.P.(C) No. 3462/2018

11-10-2018

13-11-2018

58

Chetana Conscience of Women v.

Indian Young Lawyers Association

C.A. No. 38013/2018

 

R.P.(C) No. 003469/2018

08-10-2018

13-11-2018

59

Sabrimala Custom Protection Forum( A Registered Society) Secretary v. Indian Young Lawyers Association Through Its General Secretary Through General Secretary

C.A. No. 38475/2018

 

R.P.(C) No. 3470/2018

10-10-2018

13-11-2018

60

D.V. Ramana Reddy v. State of Kerala Through Chief Secretary

C.A. No. 41285/2018

 

R.P.(C) No. 3473/2018

31-10-2018

13-11-2018

61

Akhil Bhartiya Ayyappa Seva Sangham General Secretary v. 

Indian Young Lawyers Association General Secretary Ms. Bhakti Pasrija

C.A. No. 41883/2018

 

R.P.(C) No. 003480/2018

02-11-2018

13-11-2018

62

Indian Young Lawyers Association General Secretary Ms. Bhakti Pasrija v. The State of Kerala The State of Kerala Chief Secretary

C.A. No. 43243/2018

 

M.A. 3113/2018

02-11-2018

NA

63

Rahul Easwar v. State of Kerala

C.A. No. 2847/2019

 

R.P.(C) No. 345/ 2019

21-01-2019

NA

64

Yasmeen Zuber Ahmad Peerzade v. Union of India

WP(C) No. 472/2019

26-03-2019

13-01-2020

* as of