'These Papers Should Have Been Thrown In The Dustbin': SC On PILs In Sabarimala Hearing

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday deplored the misuse of public interest litigation (PILs), observing that PIL has now become ‘Private Interest Litigation’, ‘Publicity Interest Litigation’, ‘Paisa Interest Litigation’ and ‘Political Interest Litigation’. On one 2006 PIL, the apex court observed that the petition “ought not to have been entertained at all” and that the material on record should have been “thrown in the dustbin”.

The observation was made by the nine-judge Constitution bench while 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 comprised Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi.

During the hearing, 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 represented the Indian Young Lawyers Association before the bench. Gupta argued that the PIL was based on four newspaper articles published in June 2006.

The CJI 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,” observed the bench.

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 said that the court had entertained the PIL on the basis of material that did not merit judicial consideration. “We entertained the PIL based on these kinds of documents, which should have been thrown in the dustbin outright,” the CJI observed orally, referring to reliance on newspaper reports and unverified material

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. The bench shot a volley of questions at the association’s counsel.

Justice Nagarathna observed, "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?

Earlier, 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.

The bench is also examining the question of whether the community's religious head's power to expel member(s) from religious life can coexist with the individual's right to profess and practice religion under Article 25.

Senior advocate Darius Khambata, who was appearing for a Parsi Zoroastrian woman who married a Hindu man and faced excommunication from the Parsi community due to her interfaith marriage, said such practice is bad in law.

The bench observed that such selective excommunication appears to have a discriminatory effect.

"The right of conscience under Article 25 (1) is a right by birth and cannot be taken away by marriage. In this case, marriage as a basis of classification is discriminatory against women," Justice Nagarathna observed.

Also Read

Each Religious Institution Needs To Have Norms, There Can't Be Anarchy: SC In Sabarimala Case