'What Good Came Out Of Your PIL?' : Supreme Court Questions NGO Which Filed Plea For Sabarimala Women Entry

Indian Young Lawyers' Association, the NGO which filed the Public Interest Litigation petition in 2006 seeking the right of young women to enter the Sabarimala temple, faced certain tough questions from the Supreme Court on the 11th day of the hearing of the reference.

The 9-judge bench asked Advocate Ravi Prakash Gupta, the lawyer representing the Association, why the PIL was filed. The bench asked how an organisation, a juristic entity, can claim the right to worship.

"What did you file the PIL? What good has come out of it?" Justice Nagarathna asked. The bench repeatedly asked the lawyer if the organisation was headed by believers.

Noting that the President of the Association at the time was one Noushad Ali, Justice Sundresh commented, "Noushad played smart, had he attempted to put his house in order, he would not have been available to file this PIL...."

The lawyer said that Noushad was only a name-lender President who was not aware of the litigation.

The lawyer submitted that the petition was filed based on news reports about astrologers saying that the shrine was defiled after a woman entered the temple.

Gupta submitted that the PIL was filed in the backdrop of such reports, challenging the ban on the entry of women in the age group of 10 to 50 years. He referred to the affidavit filed by the Thanthri before the Kerala High Court in 1990, and said that there, the Priest made a claim that the deity disliked the presence of women. The lawyer said that such a concept was an insult to womanhood.

"How are you concerned? What is your business here?" Justice Nagarathna asked.

Justice Nagarathna asked why the petitioner chose to pursue this matter instead of taking up other causes.  "Can they not work for the welfare of the bar, for the country? Do they have no business? Work for younger members, work for people who come from the villages, who have no wherewithal..."

The lawyer informed the bench that the bench led by the then CJI Dipak Misra had found merit in the case, and had referred it to a Constitution Bench. He added that the bench led by CJI Misra had refused the withdrawal of the petition, saying that it was a matter of the Court, and the petitioners, who faced threats, were granted police protection.

The lawyer said that he himself also faced threats, but did not take them seriously. He added that Noushad Ali was only a name-lender President, and was not really aware of the litigation; however, a narrative was created that a Muslim person was questioning temple customs, and as a result, he received a lot of threats.

The bench then observed that the Court could have ensured that there was no security threat for the petitioners by dismissing the petition.

"Rather than ensuring that there was security provided, he (ex-CJI Misra) could have ensured that there is no need for a security threat at all by not entertaining the PIL. With great respect, we are saying this." Justice Nagarathna said.

CJI Surya Kant observed that the PIL filed on the basis of newspaper reports should have been dismissed then itself. 

"Please come to this page, we entertained the PIL based on these kind of the documents, which should have been thrown out outrightly in the dustbins. Newsitems!."

Justice Aravind Kumar asked if there was a resolution passed by the organisation authorising the filing of the petition. When the lawyer answered that he was not aware of any such resolution, Justice Sundresh said, "This is nothing but an abuse of the process of law."

Gupta claimed that there is no requirement to pass any resolution to file the petition.

The lawyer submitted that the question of the petitioner's locus was no longer relevant, as the matter had travelled from a three-judge bench to the five-judge bench, which delivered a judgment, finding the matter a worthy cause to entertain.

Justice Nagarathna reiterated her concerns about non-believers questioning temple customs. "This is quite serious. The ones who have faith in the deity will perform all that is needed. But someone says that they will break all Niyam, which cannot be encouraged by this court.  People who did not have faith and belief in that deity, you are saying, allow them to enter. You are not a true believer ! "

The lawyer also questioned the reference to the 9-judge bench, relying on certain observations in the Aligarh Muslim University case. However, the CJI pointed out that the validity of the reference was already upheld by an order passed in February 2020, and the issue cannot be raised again.

Advocate Gupta submitted that Hinduism is an inherently liberal religion which defies precise definition. He stated that whether it is described as Sanatana Dharma or Hinduism, it cannot be confined within any single expression, and may even be regarded as an abstract of all religions. He contended that the religion offers solace to all.

He further submitted that Hinduism accommodates a wide range of contrasting ideologies and is gradually moving away from violence. According to him, it is essentially a way of life rather than a system governed by fixed rules. 

The Advocate submitted that religious institutions perform a range of activities, including rituals and ceremonies, and that meaningful practice of religion may not be possible without participation in such institutional practices. He referred to academic writings to contend that religion has both personal and institutional dimensions.

Referring to Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, he submitted that these provisions recognise both private and public dimensions of religion, and that the right to practice religion includes the right to enter public religious institutions.  

The lawyer also supported the retention of the concept of 'Constitutional morality'. He referred to a judgment authored by Justice Sanjay Karol as the CJ of Tripura High Court, banning animal sacrifices following the Sabarimala judgment. If the Sabarimala judgment is reversed, many regressive practices will be revived, the lawyer added.

The lawyer also claimed during the hearing that Lord Ayyappa was actually a Buddhist deity. The bench did not appreciate this submission and asked him to confine to legal arguments.

The arguments are underway. Live updates can be followed here.