New Delhi, May 5 The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the locus and intent of the Indian Young Lawyers’ Association in filing the public interest litigation (PIL) that led to the much-debated Sabarimala judgment, with a nine-judge Constitution Bench repeatedly asking why a lawyers’ body had chosen to intervene in a matter concerning religious practices.
Hearing the Sabarimala review reference, the Bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, A.G. Masih, Prasanna B. Varale, R. Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi posed a series of sharp questions to advocate Ravi Prakash Gupta, appearing for the petitioner association.
"Who are you? Why are you concerned with all this?" Justice Nagarathna asked, repeatedly questioning how a juristic entity could claim a right to worship or challenge temple customs.
"What good has come out of it?" the judge further asked, expressing strong disapproval of the manner in which the PIL was instituted.
The apex court raised concerns over whether the association had authorised the litigation through any formal resolution. When the counsel expressed a lack of clarity on this aspect, Justice Sundresh remarked that the case appeared to be "nothing but an abuse of the process of law".
The apex court further took note of the submission that the association’s then President, Noushad Ali, was allegedly a “name-lender” who was not aware of the litigation.
Justice Sundresh remarked that had he been actively involved, "he would not have been available to file this PIL".
Referring to submissions that the PIL was based on newspaper reports and claims surrounding temple practices, the CJI Kant observed that such material "should have been thrown out outrightly".
During the hearing, the Supreme Court also expressed reservations about non-believers questioning religious customs. Justice Nagarathna observed that those who lack faith in a deity cannot seek to dismantle established "niyam" (customs), adding that such attempts cannot be encouraged by a Constitutional court.
During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the PIL was filed to challenge the exclusion of women aged 10 to 50 years from the Sabarimala Temple, relying on earlier affidavits and reports suggesting that the deity did not permit the entry of women. Advocate Gupta contended that such claims were an "insult to womanhood" and inconsistent with Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
The counsel further submitted that the issue of locus had lost significance after the matter was entertained and culminated in the 2018 judgment delivered by a Constitution Bench led by then CJI Dipak Misra, which allowed the entry of women of all ages into Sabarimala.
At one stage, the Supreme Court also cautioned advocate Gupta against straying into historical claims, particularly after a submission that Lord Ayyappa may have Buddhist origins, asking him to confine arguments strictly to legal questions.
Throughout the hearing, the 9-juge Constitution Bench stressed that it would not revisit the factual correctness of the 2018 verdict, and urged counsel to address only the constitutional issues referred for determination.
The hearing forms part of the ongoing consideration of larger constitutional questions arising from the Sabarimala verdict, which had triggered widespread protests in Kerala following the 2018 ruling. The apex court is currently examining broader questions concerning the interplay between religious freedom and other fundamental rights, including the extent of judicial review over religious practices and the scope of denominational rights under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
Apart from the Sabarimala issue, the Constitution Bench will also consider allied questions such as the entry of Muslim women into mosques and dargahs, the rights of Parsi women to access fire temples after interfaith marriages, the validity of excommunication practices, and the legality of female genital mutilation in the Dawoodi Bohra community.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor