New Delhi, May 5: The Supreme Court’s nine-judge constitutional bench posed pointed questions to the original petitioner during the hearing of the Sabarimala temple case. The court inquired whether the petitioner is the chief priest of the country, questioning the basis for bringing such religious matters to court.
This case challenges the traditional ban on the entry of women aged 10 to 50 into the Sabarimala temple. During the hearing, the court raised concerns about the legitimacy of the petition filed by the Indian Lawyers Association.
The constitutional bench remarked that such public interest litigation appears to be an abuse of legal processes. The court also stated that the petitioner organization should focus on the welfare of lawyers rather than intervening in religious matters.
Justice B.V. Nagarathna, a member of the bench, expressed strong criticism, noting that public interest litigation is increasingly becoming a vehicle for private, monetary, and publicity interests.
Notably, this same organization challenged the ban on women’s entry into the Sabarimala temple in 2006. Subsequently, in 2018, a five-judge constitutional bench of the Supreme Court allowed women of all ages to enter the temple by a 4:1 majority. Review petitions against this decision are currently under consideration.
During the hearing, lawyer Ravi Prakash Gupta, representing the petitioner, questioned the priest’s argument that Lord Ayyappa does not favor young women. He labeled this as an insult to the deity, asking if such statements could be deemed a matter of faith.
In response, the court questioned why a lawyers’ organization is intervening in such religious issues. The lawyer replied that their client is primarily a woman and then a Hindu, asserting that such statements harm her identity.
Justice Nagarathna expressed her dissatisfaction, stating that the organization should assist talented lawyers from young and rural backgrounds instead of filing such petitions.
During the proceedings, Justice Arvind Kumar also asked whether the organization had made an official decision to file this petition and if its president had signed it. The lawyer clarified that while the organization is registered, no formal resolution had been passed in this regard.
Another judge remarked that such public interest litigations should be avoided, as they may lead to an abuse of judicial processes.
–
My name is Bhupendra Singh Chundawat. I am an experienced content writer with several years of expertise in the field. Currently, I contribute to Daily Kiran, creating engaging and informative content across a variety of categories including technology, health, travel, education, and automobiles. My goal is to deliver accurate, insightful, and captivating information through my words to help readers stay informed and empowered.
Leave a Comment