Sabarimala PIL should have been thrown in dustbin, Supreme Court slams 2006 petitioners

NEW DELHI: Chief Justice Surya Kant observed that the 2006 Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the entry of women into Sabarimala should have been "thrown into the dustbin" immediately. Presiding over a nine-judge Constitution Bench hearing matters concerning faith and religious practices, the Chief Justice heavily criticised the petitioners, the Indian Young Lawyers Association (IYLA).

Representing the association, Advocate Ravi Prakash Gupta stated that the PIL was filed based on articles regarding the restriction on women aged 10 to 50 at the shrine. He further cited the "honey trap" incident involving then-Tantri Kandararu Mohanararu as a motivating factor for the petition.

The Chief Justice questioned the organisation's authority to file a PIL solely based on news articles. Regarding the allegations against the Tantri, the court clarified that criminal acts follow their own legal course of trial and cannot serve as a valid basis for such a petition.

Judicial misuse cannot be encouraged

Justice B.V. Nagarathna, the sole female judge on the bench, termed the petition a "misuse of the judicial system." She noted that the petitioners were not devotees of Lord Ayyappa and questioned the actual benefit derived from the PIL.

"True devotees of Lord Ayyappa respect the traditions of Sabarimala. The court cannot encourage those who seek to violate customs," Justice Nagarathna remarked. She suggested that rather than engaging in litigation based on articles, the association should have focused on the welfare of struggling lawyers in rural areas, adding sarcastically that writing articles just to facilitate PILs is an easy task.

Discrimination against Parsi women

In a separate but related hearing concerning the rights of Parsi women, the court observed that excommunicating women who marry outside the community is "discriminatory." The bench was hearing petitions challenging the practice of barring Parsi women from fire temples after interfaith marriages.

Justice Nagarathna emphasised that a person’s religion at birth cannot be stripped away simply due to marriage. The hearing is set to continue tomorrow.