SC Questions Locus of YILA in Sabarimala Women Entry PIL

A nine-judge bench led by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant asked the basis of an organisation that is focused on the interests of young lawyers, approaching the apex court with a public interest litigation seeking review of Kerala High Court decision to uphold the prohibition on the entry of women (aged 10-50) in the Lord Ayyappa temple in Sabrimala, Kerala.

The Court also probed whether the organisation had formally authorised the filing of the PIL. "Who is the president of this organisation? Did the president pass a resolution authorising this petition?" the The court asked.

The plea sought to allow entry of women aged 10-50 into the Sabarimala temple, while at the same time claiming not to challenge the underlying religious belief behind the restriction. Flagging this inconsistency, CJI Surya Kant asked, "How do you reconcile prayer (a) with paragraph 3 on page 10, where you seek to allow women aged 10 to 50 to enter, while simultaneously stating that you are not challenging the belief?"

The Court further questioned whether a juristic entity could at all claim to engage with matters of faith.

Justice B.V. Nagarathna questioned how an organisation can file a plea without having the locus of a devotee, as that could only be an individual.

"How does a juristic body, your association, have a belief? It is the individual who has belief and conscience," she asked, implying that questions of religion are inherently personal and not easily attributable to organisations.

As the hearing progressed, the Court grew increasingly sceptical of the petitioner's standing in the matter. Justice Nagarathna asked pointedly, "How are you concerned? What is your business here?" while the Chief Justice added a sharp remark, "Are you the Chief Minister of the country?"

In response, the senior counsel appearing for YILA attempted to justify the petition by referring to earlier judicial findings by arguing that barring the entry of women is akin to attacking one's womanhood.

The Bench, however, remained unconvinced.

Justice Nagarathna suggested that the association's focus ought to remain aligned with its stated objectives, remarking, "Can they not work for the welfare of the Bar, for the country? Work for younger members, for those coming from villages who have no wherewithal."

The hearing also delved into broader constitutional questions surrounding the scope of religious freedom. Senior Advocate Gupta, appearing for the petitioners YILA, submitted that fundamental rights, including the right to freely practise religion, are not absolute.

"There is no concept of absolute freedom. If the expression 'freely' is read with 'equally', it means all persons can exercise the right subject to public order, morality and health. If this right is exercised in a religious institution, it must be exercised reasonably", he argued

This prompted Justice Nagarathna to raise a critical concern about the implications of such an argument, asking, "That means people with no belief can enter the temple?" Gupta, in response, questioned whether such individuals would be willing to abide by the norms of worship, stating, "Do they give an undertaking?"

Justice Nagarathna also verbally observed that the Court would not endorse deliberate disregard of religious practices.

"A person who has full faith will follow what is required for the performance of worship. But if someone says, 'I will enter even if I do not believe,' this Court will not encourage such a person. One cannot say 'I will break the niyams' and then seek protection from this Court", the only woman-judge in the nine -The judge said.

Gupta clarified that such a situation did not arise in the present case, stating, "This is not the case in Sabarimala." However, Justice Nagarathna remained firm, responding, "Then you are not a true believer."

The case traces its origins to a 1991 judgment of the Kerala High Court, which had upheld the restriction on the entry of women of a particular age group into the Sabarimala temple, holding that courts should not interfere with temple administration grounded in long-standing religious customs and practices. This decision was subsequently challenged in 2006 by YILA through a PIL seeking its review.

The litigation eventually culminated in the landmark 2018 Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court, which held that the exclusion of women between the ages of 10 and 50 violated fundamental rights, including equality and non-discrimination, and permitted the entry of women of all ages into the temple.

The present proceedings before the nine-judge Bench arise from broader questions relating to the interplay between religious freedom and other fundamental rights, and the extent to which courts can examine essential religious practices.

- ANI