Sabarimala PIL: Indian SC says the 2006 public interest litigation should have been ‘thrown in dustbin’

The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday (May 5) sharply questioned the very basis of the 2006 public interest litigation that led to its landmark 2018 judgment permitting entry of women of all ages into Kerala’s Sabarimala temple, observing that the petition ought not to have been entertained and that the material relied upon should have been “thrown in the dustbin”.

A nine-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, and comprising Justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, AG Masih, R Mahadevan, Prasanna B Varale and Joymalya Bagchi, made the observations while hearing a batch of matters arising from the Sabarimala review proceedings and related questions on the scope of religious freedom.

The remarks came during submissions by senior counsel RP Gupta, appearing for the Indian Young Lawyers’ Association, which had filed the original plea challenging the exclusion of women of menstruating age from the hill shrine.

Court criticises basis of petition

Taking strong exception to the foundation of the PIL, the bench indicated that the court had earlier entertained the petition based on material that did not warrant judicial scrutiny. “We entertained the PIL based on these kinds of documents, which should have been thrown in the dustbin outright,” the Chief Justice said, referring to reliance on newspaper reports and unverified material.

Justice Nagarathna echoed the concern, stating that instead of ensuring security for the petitioners, the court could have avoided the issue altogether by declining to entertain the plea. She referred to a 2016 order of a bench led by former Chief Justice Dipak Misra, which had granted protection to office-bearers of the association and allowed the case to proceed even if the petitioners sought to withdraw.

“With great respect, rather than ensuring there was security provided to the advocates, he could have ensured that there was no need for a security threat at all by not entertaining this petition,” she said. Justice Sundresh added that the petition reflected an “abuse of the process of law”.

Judges flag concerns over misuse of PILs

In a broader critique, the bench cautioned against the growing misuse of public interest litigation. Justice Nagarathna observed that PILs, originally intended to enhance access to justice, were increasingly being used for “private, publicity, paisa and political interest”.

The court also questioned the locus and intent of the petitioners. “Why have you filed this PIL? Are you the chief priest of the country?” the Chief Justice asked, while Justice Nagarathna queried whether a lawyers’ body should engage in such matters instead of focusing on the welfare of the bar and young practitioners.

Arguments on religious rights

Defending the plea, Gupta argued that religion has both personal and institutional dimensions, and that denial of entry into places of worship could violate the fundamental right to practise religion under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. He submitted that the right to worship includes access to public religious institutions, irrespective of an individual’s faith.

The bench, however, expressed reservations about allowing those without faith in a particular deity to claim such a right. Justice Nagarathna noted that those who follow a faith adhere to its norms, adding that individuals who seek to disregard established practices cannot be encouraged.

Senior counsel Darius Khambata also addressed the bench on the 11th day of hearings in a connected matter concerning whether a Parsi woman retains her religious identity after marrying a person of another faith under the Special Marriage Act.