The Supreme Court of India raised serious concerns over the Public Interest Litigation filed by the Indian Young Lawyers’ Association seeking entry of women into the Sabarimala Temple, questioning both the intent and the manner in which the petition was instituted.
Bench Questions Purpose and Outcome of PIL
During the hearing – details of which have been reported by Live Law, the nine judge bench, including Justice BV Nagarathna, asked what the petition had ultimately achieved. The court questioned why the PIL was filed at all and whether any meaningful outcome had resulted from it.
Doubts Raised Over Locus of the Organisation
The bench asked how a juristic entity like the association could claim a right to worship. Judges repeatedly questioned whether the organisation was composed of genuine believers and whether it had any direct stake in the religious practices it sought to challenge.
Observations on Filing Process and Leadership
Referring to the then president Noushad Ali, Justice P. S. Sundresh remarked critically on the circumstances under which the PIL was filed. The petitioner’s counsel stated that Ali was only a nominal head and was not aware of the litigation, which further drew concern from the bench.
Petition Based on Media Reports
The counsel, Advocate Ravi Prakash Gupta, submitted that the petition was triggered by news reports suggesting that the temple was considered defiled after the entry of a woman. The plea challenged the restriction on women aged 10 to 50 entering the shrine, also citing earlier statements by temple authorities.
Court Criticises Reliance on News Items
The bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, observed that a PIL based solely on newspaper reports should not have been entertained. The court remarked that such material should have been dismissed at the threshold.
No Resolution Seen as Abuse of Process
When asked whether the association had passed any formal resolution authorising the filing of the PIL, the counsel admitted he was unaware. The bench termed this a serious lapse, with Justice Sundresh calling it an abuse of the legal process.
Questions on Choice of Cause and Priorities
Justice Nagarathna also questioned why the organisation chose to pursue this issue instead of other welfare causes. She suggested that efforts could have been directed toward supporting legal professionals or disadvantaged communities.
Reference to Earlier Proceedings and Protection
The counsel pointed out that an earlier bench led by Dipak Misra had found merit in the case and referred it to a Constitution Bench. He added that the petitioners had faced threats and were granted police protection.
Court Suggests PIL Could Have Been Dismissed Earlier
The bench observed that such threats might have been avoided altogether if the PIL had not been entertained in the first place. It noted that dismissal at an early stage could have prevented escalation.
Concerns Over Non-Believers Challenging Religious Practices
Justice Nagarathna raised broader concerns about individuals without faith questioning established religious customs. She stressed that courts must be cautious in allowing challenges that may interfere with deeply held beliefs.
Debate on Constitutional and Religious Principles
The counsel argued that Hinduism, often described as Sanatana Dharma, is inherently inclusive and evolving. He cited Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution to argue that the right to practice religion includes access to public religious institutions.
During the hearing, the lawyer’s claim linking Lord Ayyappa to Buddhism was not appreciated by the bench, which asked him to restrict arguments to legal issues relevant to the case.
How the Sabarimala Temple Dispute Reached the Supreme Court
The Sabarimala temple in Kerala, dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, has long followed a practice restricting the entry of women between the ages of 10 and 50. The custom is linked to the belief that the deity is a Naishtika Brahmachari (eternal celibate), and the pilgrimage itself involves strict observances, including a 41-day period of penance undertaken by devotees. Almost all devotees of Lord Ayyappa have found the rules perfectly acceptable and it was almost never a contentious issue as far as the followers of the Sanatan Hindu Dharma were concerned.
The issue entered the legal domain in 2006 when the Indian Young Lawyers’ Association filed a Public Interest Litigation before the Supreme Court of India, challenging the validity of the restriction. Over time, the case expanded into a wider constitutional debate on the balance between religious practices and fundamental rights.
In September 2018, a five-judge Constitution Bench led by then Chief Justice Dipak Misra delivered a split verdict, with a 4:1 majority holding that the exclusion of women in the specified age group was unconstitutional. One judge dissented, taking a different view on the scope of judicial intervention in matters of faith.
The judgment led to widespread protests and unrest in Kerala, particularly during the annual pilgrimage season. Attempts by women to enter the shrine became flashpoints, requiring police intervention and leading to a prolonged public and political standoff.
Subsequently, several review petitions were filed. In 2019, a Constitution Bench headed by then Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi kept the review petitions pending while referring broader constitutional questions to a larger nine-judge bench. These questions relate to the extent of judicial review in religious matters, the concept of essential religious practices, and the interplay between individual rights and denominational freedoms.
The matter has since remained under consideration, with the court examining these larger issues that go beyond Sabarimala and may have implications for similar disputes involving religious customs and practices across communities.
