On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to consider a petition that demanded “mandatory registration” for devotees planning to visit Kerala’s Sabarimala temple. “Do you have such confidence that your petition will be rejected?” Justice Kant inquired.
The Supreme Court on Monday declined to consider a plea for the “compulsory registration” of pilgrims visiting the Sabarimala temple in Kerala. The Bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and K.V. Viswanathan, advised petitioner K.K. Ramesh to take his concerns to the Kerala High Court, emphasizing the importance of local insight into the matter.
Also read- Supreme Court Reviews Request Of Free Services For Sabarimala. (lawchakra.in)
The petition highlighted the need for a structured approach to managing the influx of devotees to the Sabarimala temple, suggesting a registration system akin to that employed by the Amarnath Shrine Board. It proposed the creation of a master plan to efficiently regulate the crowd, ensuring a smoother pilgrimage experience.
Justice Surya Kant, addressing the petitioner’s counsel, underscored the significance of thorough research before filing such Public Interest Litigations (PILs). He pointed to the effective crowd management practices at other religious sites, such as Tirupathi, Vaishno Devi, and the Golden Temple, as models of efficient visitor regulation.
Also read- Supreme Court Reduces Sentence In Marriage To Minor Case (lawchakra.in)
Justice Viswanathan highlighted the expertise of the Kerala High Court in dealing with matters related to the temple, noting its Devaswom Bench’s familiarity with the local context, including geographical specifics and the sentiments of the devotees. This local expertise, he suggested, positions the High Court as a more appropriate venue for considering the petition.
The dialogue between the justices and the petitioner’s counsel also touched on the procedural aspects of legal appeals. Justice Kant’s query about the counsel’s confidence in the petition’s dismissal and Justice Viswanathan’s metaphorical reference to not “playing the second innings first” underscored the stepwise nature of the judicial process.
This decision sends a clear message about the Supreme Court’s stance on jurisdiction and the importance of leveraging local judicial knowledge for issues deeply rooted in specific cultural and geographical contexts. The counsel’s acknowledgment of the potential for the case to eventually reach the Supreme Court regardless of the initial plea’s outcome reflects the layered nature of legal proceedings in India.
Also read- Supreme Court Seeks Action On Organ Transplant Regulations (lawchakra.in)