Here's a look at the big upcoming verdicts of the Supreme Court and their implications, with only three working days left before CJI Ranjan Gogoi retires. While the longest standing and most politically crucial case in the country- the Ayodhya case, saw a verdict on Saturday, the three remaining working days of the Supreme Court of India, before the scheduled retirement of CJI Ranjan Gogoi on November 17, will see several other important verdicts. The Supreme Court opens on Wednesday- November 13, with Chief Justice Gogoi set to retire on Sunday. At the time this article was put together- on Monday afternoon-- the SC website did not contain any information regarding any judgment to be passed by the CJI led bench on Wednesday. Last September, the Sabarimala judgment of the five-judge bench- by then CJI DIpak Mishra, Justices RF Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra, had created a storm by allowing women to enter the Ayyappa Shrine at Sabarimala and participate in the 40-day ritual pilgrimage. The majority judgment had clearly upheld the right of women to worship on equal footing as men and had decried the 'traditions' that placed women at a disadvantage. However, Justice Malhotra- the sole woman judge on the bench had given a sharply worded dissenting opinion, where she argued that the judiciary could not "impose its own values" on faith, and must accept beliefs as a matter of faith. As many as 48 review petitions had been filed against the verdict, with the Supreme Court under CJI Gogoi hearing the matter in open court for an entire day on February 6 this year. The five-judge bench now of CJI Gogoi, Justices Nariman, Khanwilkar, Chandrachud and Malhotra, is set to deliver its judgment before the retirement of CJI Gogoi. The Ayodhya judgment, with its observations regarding acceptance of faith and belief, has raised expectations that the review plea may be in favour of the Ayappa devotees, who want to continue the ritual ban on participation of women, as the deity Ayappa is considered a "naishtika brahmachari- eternal celibate- who is expected to stay away from women of child bearing age. In the Ayodhya verdict, the bench had observed: "This court, as a secular institution, set up under a constitutional regime must steer clear from choosing one among many possible interpretations of theological doctrine and must defer to the safer course of accepting the faith and belief of the worshipper." The PILs in the Rafale case had accused the PMO of 'interference' in the defence procurement mechanism, and had raised concerns of corruption and influence during the defence deal. The PILs had also raised concerns about the pricing of the combat aircraft, and the manner in which the contract had been signed. They had also raised questions regarding the role of the Anil Ambani led Reliance group in the deal. The original judgment had clearly said that the judiciary would not interfere in the issue and had rejected the allegations of interference in the defence procurement on grounds that the defence deal was being scrutinised at all levels by the government, and the judiciary could not interfere without clear evidence of wrongdoing. The review petitions had relied on 'leaked' documents from the Ministry of Defence, which seemed to indicate that the Prime Minister's Office had conducted negotiations during the defence deal, without involving the MoD. The review petitions had alleged that the government had "misled" the Supreme Court regarding the deal, as the judgment had noted that the pricing and other details of the Rafale deal had been considered in detail by the CAG and placed before the Parliament. It was pointed out that the pricing details had not been considered by the CAG, and no report had been placed before the Parliament prior to the passing of the judgment. The Centre in an application also "clarified" that the Supreme Court had "misread" the submissions given by the MoD, as the government had not, in fact, said that the CAG report had been tabled. The Centre also claimed that the paragraphs regarding tabling of the CAG report were only setting out the 'due process' that would eventually be followed on the defence deal. The Modi government, which has showcased the Rafale deal as a necessary step in the modernisation of the Indian Air Force, had denied any wrongdoing. The Rafale deal had become a huge political controversy, but the procurement of the aircraft has been seen so far as a 'win' for the BJP government.