Top News

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (May 5) criticised the Indian Young Lawyers Association (IYLA), asking whether it is the country’s chief priest, in connection with its 2006 public interest litigation (PIL) that contests the ban on women between the ages of 10 and 50 from accessing the Sabarimala Temple in Kerala.

Also read: Supreme Court questions non-believer’s right to enter Sabarimala

The apex court noted that the PIL constituted an “abuse of process of law” and emphasised that the body ought to focus on supporting the bar and promoting the welfare of its younger members instead of pursuing such PILs.

Remark by 9-judge bench

The remark was made by a nine-judge Constitution bench during the hearing of petitions concerning discrimination against women at religious sites, including the Sabarimala temple in Kerala, as well as the extent and interpretation of religious freedom practised by various faiths.

The bench included Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant along with Justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi.

Advocate Ravi Prakash Gupta, appearing for the IYLA, submitted that there were four articles in the newspaper in June 2006, and the PIL was based on them.

He argued that the association was not challenging the faith of Lord Ayyappa’s devotees but was upholding it.

As the lawyer proceeded with submissions, Justice Nagarathna observed, “How does a juristic body like yours have a belief? This is for an individual. You don’t have a conscience.”

Also read: Sabarimala: Kerala govt cites ‘2007 stance’ to seek scholar panel for review of rituals

Justice Kumar also asked, “Has your organisation passed a resolution to file a PIL? Has your president signed it?”

CJI Kant said, “Why have you filed this PIL? Are you the chief priest of the country?”

The lawyer responded that the organisation is a registered body.

Referring to earlier submissions, the advocate said the temple’s ‘tantri’ (priest) has mentioned that young women should not be permitted to enter the temple as the deity doesn’t like young ladies. He also expressed strong objections to references made by three judges regarding the nine-judge bench.

‘Lawyers’ association has no other business?’

Justice Nagarathna then remarked, “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? 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. People have come from the villages with different minds. Rather than doing this time, in the Supreme Court.”

Also read: Poor planning over the years has led to Sabarimala temple bottlenecks

The hearing is currently in progress.

A Constitution bench consisting of five judges had removed the prohibition that barred women aged between 10 and 50 from accessing the Sabarimala Ayyappa temple, delivering a 4:1 majority decision in September 2018.

The ruling declared that the long-standing Hindu religious practice was both illegal and unconstitutional.

(With agency inputs)