NEW DELHI: Slamming the Indian Young Lawyers Association (IYLA) over its 2006 PIL challenging prohibition of women aged 10 to 50 from entering the Sabarimala Temple in Kerala, the Supreme Court on Tuesday asked, “Are you the chief priest of the country”.
Observing that the PIL was an “abuse of process of law”, the court said the association should work for the bar and the welfare of its younger members rather than filing such PILs. “Why have you filed this PIL? Are you the chief priest of the country?” it added.
Justice B V Nagarathna, the lone lady judge on the bench, remarked, “The Indian 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?”
The observation of the nine-judge Constitution bench came while hearing a batch of review petitions related to the discrimination against women at religious places, including the Sabarimala temple in Kerala, and to the ambit and scope of the religious freedom practised by multiple faiths. The hearing was inconclusive and would continue on Wednesday.
Commenting on the misuse of PILs, the top court also remarked that PILs have become ‘Private Interest Litigation’, ‘Publicity Interest Litigation’, ‘Paisa Interest Litigation’ and ‘Political Interest Litigation’.
Advocate Ravi Prakash Gupta, appearing for the IYLA, argued that the PIL was based on four newspaper articles published in June 2006.
Hearing these submissions, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, remarked that the PIL should have been dismissed outright. “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,” the bench said.
Echoing Justice Kant’s views, Justice Nagarathna added, “We have been entertaining PILs in High Courts and in the Supreme Court for general public who need it. Not for articles being written in newspapers.
The other judges in the bench included Justices M M Sundresh, Joymalya Bagchi, and Ahsanuddin Amanullah.