In a pointed exchange, India’s Supreme Court Constitution Bench of nine judges interrogated the motives behind a lawyers’ group’s deep involvement in the Sabarimala temple entry row. ‘Are you the head priest of the country?’ the court quipped at the Indian Lawyers Association during Thursday’s proceedings.
This high-stakes review revisits the contentious 2018 ruling permitting women of all ages into the hilltop shrine, challenging age-old customs prohibiting those of menstruating age. The original 2006 petition from the association now faces scrutiny over its legitimacy.
The bench didn’t mince words, decrying the PIL as an abuse of legal machinery. Justice BV Nagarathna lambasted the shift, noting PILs increasingly serve ‘private, paisa, publicity’ interests over public good.
Counsel Ravi Prakash Gupta defended passionately, rejecting priests’ assertions that the deity shuns young women as blasphemous. ‘Can this be called faith?’ he challenged, stressing the emotional injury to Hindu women.
Justice Nagarathna shot back, advising the group to aid budding lawyers from villages rather than court religious battles. The court delved into procedural lapses, questioning if any board resolution authorized the filing—revealing none existed.
Justice Arvind Kumar and peers voiced concerns over unchecked PILs eroding trust in judiciary. This episode highlights broader debates on when courts should intervene in faith practices versus upholding fundamental rights.
Originating from Kerala’s revered Ayyappa temple, the saga has polarized opinions nationwide. Review petitions post-2018 verdict seek to restore traditions amid equality claims. Observers await if the larger bench will tip the scales toward custom or constitutionalism.
The discourse promises lasting impact on how India navigates religion-state intersections in pluralistic democracy.
