The Supreme Court on Tuesday pulled up the Indian Young Lawyers Association for its 2006 Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the age-old prohibition on women aged 10 to 50 entering the Sabarimala Temple in Kerala. A nine-judge Constitution bench, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, characterized the petition as an “abuse of process of law,” questioning the association’s locus standi and its primary objectives.
The sharp remarks came as the bench, which includes Justices B.V. Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B. Varale, R. Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi, heard a batch of petitions concerning discrimination against women at religious places and the broader scope of religious freedom.
The proceedings took a stern turn when the counsel for the Indian Young Lawyers Association, Advocate Ravi Prakash Gupta, submitted that the 2006 PIL was initiated based on four newspaper articles. Gupta argued that the association sought to uphold the faith of Lord Ayyappa’s devotees rather than challenge it.
However, the bench was quick to question the credentials of a juristic body filing a plea on matters of individual faith. Justice Nagarathna remarked, “How does a juristic body like yours have a belief? This is for an individual. You don’t have a conscience.”
Justice Aravind Kumar followed up by inquiring whether the organization had followed proper internal protocols, asking, “Has your organization passed a resolution to file a PIL? Has your president signed it?”
CJI Surya Kant further challenged the association’s standing in the matter, asking, “Why have you filed this PIL? Are you the chief priest of the country?”
The court suggested that the association should redirect its efforts toward the welfare of the legal community rather than litigating religious traditions. Justice Nagarathna emphasized that the association should assist younger members of the bar, particularly those from rural backgrounds who face significant hurdles when practicing in major cities.
“Young Lawyers Association has no other business? They can’t work for the welfare of the bar or assist the bench for the legal system of this country?” Justice Nagarathna observed. “Work for the bar, work for younger members and for their welfare. Those who are struggling in rural areas have difficulty coming to the cities to argue cases. They have brilliant minds… Rather than doing this time, in the Supreme Court.”
The current hearing is part of a larger review involving the intersection of religious rights and gender equality. In September 2018, a five-judge Constitution bench had delivered a 4:1 majority verdict lifting the ban on women of menstruating age entering the Sabarimala temple, declaring the practice unconstitutional.
During Tuesday’s hearing, the advocate for the association referred to statements made by the temple’s tantri (priest) regarding the deity’s preferences and also expressed objections to certain references made by judges regarding the formation of the nine-judge bench.
The hearing remains underway as the nine-judge bench continues to examine the ambit of judicial interference in religious practices.
