Today, On 5th May, The Supreme Court asked “Are you the chief priest of the country?” while criticising the Indian Young Lawyers Association’s 2006 PIL against restrictions on women aged 10 to 50 entering Kerala’s Sabarimala Temple. The court called the petition amounted to an abuse of process of law.
The Supreme Court came down heavily on the Indian Young Lawyers Association (IYLA) regarding its 2006 PIL that challenged the prohibition on women aged 10 to 50 entering the Sabarimala Temple in Kerala.
The court observed that the petition amounted to an abuse of process of law and said the IYLA should focus on the legal profession and the welfare of its younger members instead of filing such PILs.
The observation was made by a nine-judge Constitution bench while hearing petitions concerning discrimination against women at religious places, including the Sabarimala Temple in Keralam, and issues related to the scope of religious freedom practised by multiple faiths.
A nine-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi, is currently hearing the long-pending Sabarimala reference case.
Advocate Ravi Prakash Gupta, appearing for the IYLA, told the court that the 2006 PIL was based on four articles published in a newspaper.
He argued that the association was not attacking the beliefs of Lord Ayyappa’s devotees but was instead seeking to uphold them.
During the proceedings, Justice Nagarathna questioned the basis of the PIL, asking,
“How does a juristic body like yours have a belief? This is for an individual. You don’t have a conscience.”
Justice Kumar similarly asked whether the organisation had passed a resolution to file the PIL and whether the president had signed it. CJI Kant also asked the advocate,
“Why have you filed this PIL? Are you the chief priest of the country?”
The lawyer replied that the organisation is a registered body. He further submitted that the temple’s tantri (priest) had stated that young women should not be allowed to enter the temple because the deity allegedly does not prefer young ladies.
The advocate also objected strongly to references made by three judges in their observations.
As the submissions continued, Justice Nagarathna 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?”
She said,
“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,”
Earlier, the top court had said it is extremely difficult if not impossible for a judicial forum to set parameters to determine whether a particular practice of a religious denomination is essential or non-essential.
In September 2018, a five-judge Constitution bench, in a 4:1 majority decision, lifted a ban that had restricted women aged between 10 and 50 from entering the Sabarimala Ayyappa temple, holding that the long-standing Hindu religious practice was illegal and unconstitutional.
This case is linked to the landmark 2018 judgment where the Court allowed entry of women of all age groups into the Sabarimala temple in Kerala, ending the earlier restriction on women of menstruating age.
Later, in 2019, while hearing review petitions, the Court did not give a final verdict but instead referred larger constitutional questions to a bigger bench. These questions mainly deal with the balance between religious freedom under Articles 25 and 26 and the right to equality under Article 14.
Click Here to Read More On Women’s Entry & Religious