The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday questioned whether people who are not devotees of Lord Ayyappa can challenge the customs of the Sabarimala Temple.
A nine-judge Constitution bench is hearing petitions linked to entry of women into places of worship and the larger issue of religious freedom across faiths.
One of the key questions before the court is whether someone outside a religious group can file a PIL against its practices.
The bench is headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and includes Justices B.V. Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B. Varale, R. Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi.
As the court was about to rise, Justice B. V. Nagarathna asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta about the original petitioners in the Sabarimala case.
"What follows from what you have just submitted is that the original petitioners are not devotees. No devotee has approached this court challenging this. Then, who are the writ petitioners who are assailing this?" she asked.
Mehta said the petition was filed by the Indian Young Lawyers Association.
Justice Nagarathna said, "They are not devotees. But let us be clear. Can any devotee of Lord Ayyappa file a writ petition challenging this? If a non-devotee, a person who is not concerned with that temple, challenges it, can this court entertain such a writ petition? We have all been trained. We have all practised in trial courts. If a suit is filed by an association, the first question would be under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure. No cause of action, no causal connection, the plaint would be rejected."
The Chief Justice referred to what he called “invisible victims” in such cases.
Mehta said, "Your Lordships rarely sit in a Bench of nine. PIL jurisdiction was initiated in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India at a time when people had no means to approach the court. I have pointed out in my written submissions that today the judicial system has become far more transparent. By e-filing, even a letter can reach the court. Now, nobody needs representation through another for an unrepresented class. If someone has no means, they can approach the District Legal Services Authority and say: my fundamental rights are violated, advise me, or file a petition on my behalf before the Supreme Court or the High Court. Then why, my Lords, should such PILs be entertained? And we know that many PILs today are motivated PILs. Somebody else is behind them."
He called it a fight between the silent majority and the vocal minority.
The CJI said the court already applies checks before taking up PILs. "We have laid down parameters to test them. Every day, we examine the real cause. There are several factors we now apply while testing a PIL. If you sit in Court No. 1, you would have seen how many PILs we actually entertain. Notices are issued only when there is substance. Perhaps from 2006 to now 2026, over these two decades, the situation has evolved, and the court has become more cautious. The point is this: on a general principle of PIL, we may not even need to hear you. We agree with you that the court has to be very cautious in entertaining PILs today, particularly when people come with different kinds of agendas."
The case links back to the court’s earlier rulings. In September 2018, a five-judge bench allowed entry of women aged 10 to 50 into Sabarimala, holding the restriction unconstitutional.
In November 2019, a bench led by former CJI Ranjan Gogoi referred broader questions on religious freedom and gender equality to a larger bench.