'Sabarimala PIL should have been outrightly dismissed,' SC disapproves of 'misuse' of PILs

The court was hearing petitions regarding "discrimination" against women at religious sites, including the Sabarimala temple in Kerala.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday strongly disapproved of the "misuse" of public interest litigation, saying that it has now become ‘Private Interest Litigation’, ‘Publicity Interest Litigation’, ‘Paisa Interest Litigation’ and ‘Political Interest Litigation’.

A nine-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant was hearing petitions regarding "discrimination" against women at religious sites, including the Sabarimala temple in Kerala, as well as the scope of religious freedom across various faiths.

The bench also comprised Justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi.

The bench questioned the objective of the Indian Young Lawyers Association regarding its 2006 PIL, which challenged the prohibition of women aged 10 to 50 from entering the Sabarimala Temple in Kerala.

Advocate Ravi Prakash Gupta, who represented the Indian Young Lawyers Association, argued that the PIL was based on four newspaper articles published in June 2006.

The bench observed that the PIL should have been dismissed outright.

The bench asked, "How does this article give the cause of action to file a PIL? It is easy to get articles written for the sake of filing PILs,” the bench observed.

Justice Nagarathna said, “We have been entertaining PILs in high courts and in the Supreme Court for the general public who need it. Not for articles being written in newspapers.”

“Public Interest Litigation has now become Private Interest Litigation, Publicity Interest Litigation, Paisa Interest Litigation and Political Interest Litigation. All are called PILs, but we entertain only real and genuine PILs,” she added.

The bench also observed that the CJI receives hundreds of letters daily, questioning whether they could all be turned into PILs.

The bench observed that the PIL was an "abuse of process of law" and the association should work for the bar and the welfare of its younger members rather than filing such PILs.

The counsel argued that the association was not challenging the faith of Lord Ayyappa's devotees but was upholding it.

Further posing questions at the association’s counsel, Justice Nagarathna asked, "How does a juristic body like yours have a belief? This is for an individual. You don't have a conscience."

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

CJI Kant added, "Why have you filed this PIL? Are you the chief priest of the country?" The lawyer responded that the organisation is a registered body.

The counsel said the temple's tantri (priest) mentioned that young women should not be permitted to enter the temple as the "deity doesn't like young ladies."

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?

A five-judge Constitution bench had lifted the ban preventing women between the ages of 10 and 50 from entering the Sabarimala Ayyappa temple in a 4:1 majority verdict in September 2018, ruling that the centuries-old Hindu religious practice was illegal and unconstitutional.