New Delhi, May 5: The Supreme Court raised significant questions on Tuesday regarding the right and intent of the Indian Young Lawyers Association to file a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that led to the controversial Sabarimala verdict. A nine-judge constitutional bench repeatedly inquired why a group of lawyers chose to intervene in a matter related to religious customs.
During the hearing of the Sabarimala review reference, the bench, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud and comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Arvind Kumar, A.G. Masih, Prasanna B. Varale, R. Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi, posed a series of pointed questions to advocate Ravi Prakash Gupta, representing the petitioners.
“Who are you? What do you have to do with all this?” Justice Nagarathna asked, repeatedly questioning how a ‘juristic entity’ could claim the right to worship or challenge the customs of a temple.
“What good has come of this?” the judge further inquired, expressing strong dissatisfaction with the manner in which the PIL was filed.
The Supreme Court expressed concern over whether the association had formally authorized this lawsuit. When the lawyer indicated a lack of clarity on this aspect, Justice Sundresh remarked that the case seemed to be “nothing but an abuse of legal process.”
The court also noted that the then-president of the association, Naushad Ali, was reportedly just a “nominal president” who had no knowledge of the lawsuit.
Justice Sundresh commented that if he were actively involved, he would not have been “available to file this PIL.”
CJI Chandrachud pointed out that the PIL was based on newspaper reports and claims related to temple customs, stating that such material should have been “outrightly dismissed.”
During the hearing, the Supreme Court also raised objections regarding how individuals who do not believe in a deity could question religious customs. Justice Nagarathna remarked that those without faith in a deity cannot attempt to abolish established “norms” and added that no constitutional court could promote such efforts.
The petitioner’s lawyer argued that the PIL was filed to challenge the ban on the entry of women aged 10 to 50 into the Sabarimala temple. He referenced previous affidavits and reports claiming that the temple’s deity does not permit women’s entry.
Advocate Gupta contended that such claims are “an affront to womanhood” and violate Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. He further stated that once the matter was accepted for hearing and a decision was rendered by a constitutional bench led by then-CJI Dipak Misra in 2018, allowing women of all ages entry into Sabarimala, the issue of ‘locus’ (the right to be a party in a case) had lost its significance.
At one point, the Supreme Court warned Gupta against getting entangled in historical claims, especially when he argued that Lord Ayyappa might be linked to Buddhism. The court instructed him to limit his arguments strictly to legal questions.
Throughout the hearing, the nine-judge constitutional bench emphasized that it would not reconsider the factual accuracy of the 2018 verdict and urged lawyers to discuss only the constitutional issues presented before them.
This hearing is part of a broader discussion on significant constitutional questions related to the Sabarimala verdict, which sparked widespread protests in Kerala following the 2018 ruling. The Supreme Court is currently examining extensive questions about the interplay between religious freedom and other fundamental rights, including the limits of judicial review on religious customs and the scope of rights under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
Leave a Comment