The Supreme Court on Tuesday, May 5, questioned the locus and intent of the Indian Young Lawyers’ Association in filing a PIL, which led to the Sabarimala judgment.
A nine-judge Constitution Bench has asked why a lawyers’ body decided to intervene in the matter concerning religious practices, IANS reported.
The matter related to the Sabarimala review reference was heard by a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant along with Justices B.V. Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, A.G. Masih, Prasanna B. Varale, R. Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi.
During the hearing the Supreme Court asked a series of questions to advocate Ravi Prakash Gupta, who appeared for the petitioner association.
“Who are you? Why are you concerned with all this?” Justice Nagarathna asked, while questioning how a juristic entity can claim the right to worship or challenge temple customs.
“What good has come out of it?” the judge further questioned and expressed strong disapproval of the manner in which the PIL was instituted.
The Supreme Court further raised concerns over whether the association had authorised the litigation through any formal resolution, according to IANS.
As the counsel expressed a lack of clarity on this aspect, Justice Sundresh stated that the case appeared to be “nothing but an abuse of the process of law”.
The matter forms part of the consideration of larger constitutional questions that have come up from the Sabarimala verdict, triggering widespread protests in Kerala following the 2018 ruling. The top court is examining broader questions concerning the interplay between religious freedom and other fundamental rights, such as the extent of judicial review over religious practices as well as scope of denominational rights under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
During the hearing on the matter, the top court took note of the submission that the association’s then president, Noushad Ali, was allegedly a “name-lender” who was unaware about the litigation.
Justice Sundresh remarked that had he been actively involved, “he would not have been available to file this PIL”.
On the PIL being based on newspaper reports and claims surrounding temple practices, the CJI said that such material “should have been thrown out outrightly”.
The apex court further expressed reservations about non-believers questioning religious customs, with Justice Nagarathna saying that those who lack faith in a deity cannot seek to dismantle established “niyam” (customs).