In a pointed exchange, India’s Supreme Court on Tuesday interrogated the credentials of the Indian Young Lawyers Association behind the PIL that led to the explosive Sabarimala verdict. The nine-judge bench, headed by CJI Suryakant alongside Justices Nagarathna, Sundresh, Amanullah, Kumar, Masih, Varale, Mahadevan, and Bagchi, dissected the group’s standing during review hearings.
Advocate Ravi Prakash Gupta faced a barrage: ‘Who gives you the locus to interfere?’ Justice Nagarathna probed, underscoring that legal bodies can’t invoke worship rights or challenge sacred rites. The court voiced frustration over the PIL’s newspaper-based foundation, with CJI Suryakant calling for its summary dismissal.
Doubts swirled around internal approvals. Justice Sundresh highlighted the absentee role of ex-president Noushad Ali, a ‘name-only’ leader clueless about the suit, deeming the entire affair a misuse of judicial machinery.
Non-believers challenging faiths drew ire. ‘You can’t erase rituals if you don’t believe in the god,’ Justice Nagarathna asserted, warning courts against validating such interventions. Gupta countered that the ban demeaned women, breaching constitutional guarantees, and post-2018 admission, standing issues evaporated.
The bench rebuffed tangents into Lord Ayyappa’s supposed Buddhist links, insisting on constitutional confines. They affirmed no re-litigation of 2018 facts, focusing solely on referred queries amid Kerala unrest echoes.
At stake are core tensions: religious autonomy versus equality, judicial overreach boundaries, and Articles 25-26 scopes. This scrutiny underscores evolving judicial caution on faith matters.
