The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday raised pivotal questions regarding the legal standing of individuals who do not follow a specific faith to challenge its centuries-old religious customs. During a high-stakes hearing, a nine-judge Constitution Bench questioned how persons who are not devotees of Lord Ayyappa could legally assail the traditions of the Sabarimala temple in Kerala.
The proceedings are part of a broader judicial review into discrimination against women at various religious places and the overall ambit of religious freedom under the Constitution. The bench, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, is currently examining seven fundamental questions regarding the intersection of individual rights and religious denominational practices.
The issue of “locus standi”—or the right to bring a lawsuit to court—took center stage when Justice B.V. Nagarathna pointedly asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta about the identity of the original petitioners in the Sabarimala case.
“What follows from what you have just submitted is that the original petitioners are not devotees. No devotee has approached this court challenging this,” Justice Nagarathna observed. “If a non-devotee, a person who is not concerned with that temple, challenges it, can this court entertain such a writ petition?”
Drawing a parallel to civil trial procedures, Justice Nagarathna noted that under standard legal rules (Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure), a case would typically be rejected if there is no “cause of action” or “causal connection” between the petitioner and the grievance.
CJI Surya Kant added a sharp critique of the trend, referring to such petitioners as the “invisible victims of the judicial system.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, characterized the litigation as a conflict between a “silent majority” of actual practitioners and a “vocal minority.”
Mehta argued that while Public Interest Litigation (PIL) jurisdiction was originally designed for those who lacked the means to reach the court—citing the landmark Bandhua Mukti Morcha case—the modern judicial system is now transparent and accessible to everyone.
“Now, nobody needs representation through another for an unrepresented class,” Mehta submitted, suggesting that many contemporary PILs are “motivated” by external agendas rather than genuine religious or civil grievances.
In response to the Solicitor General’s concerns about the misuse of PILs, the CJI emphasized that the Supreme Court has become significantly more discerning over the last two decades.
“From 2006 to now 2026, the situation has evolved, and the court has become more cautious,” the CJI stated. “We agree with you that the court has to be very cautious in entertaining PILs today, particularly when people come with different kinds of agendas.”
The Chief Justice noted that the court now applies rigorous parameters to test the “real cause” behind any petition before issuing notices.
The current hearing is the latest chapter in a long-running legal battle that began in September 2018. At that time, a five-judge bench ruled 4:1 to lift the ban on women aged 10 to 50 entering the Sabarimala temple, declaring the practice unconstitutional.
However, in November 2019, following a series of review petitions, another five-judge bench led by then-CJI Ranjan Gogoi referred the matter to a larger bench. That bench determined that issues of gender discrimination across various faiths—including entry into mosques and Parsi fire temples—needed to be addressed collectively by a nine-judge bench to establish clear constitutional principles.
The current nine-judge bench includes CJI Surya Kant and Justices B.V. Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B. Varale, R. Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi.
