The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked whether a person who is not a devotee of Lord Ayyappa can seek a ban on the practice of barring the entry of women of childbearing age to Kerala's Sabarimala temple.
"If no devotee is challenging it, why should this court be concerned with a non-devotee?" the nine-judge constitution bench asked the Centre and senior lawyers appearing in connection with the review petitions and cross-petitions relating to the 2018 judgment passed by a five-judge bench quashing the practice as unconstitutional.
On the second day of hearing, solicitor-general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, argued that the ban must be revoked and the question of imposing any such restrictions can be considered only by the legislature. He said judges were not "scholars" to determine the validity of a purely essential religious practice.
He argued that the Supreme Court passed the 2018 judgment on a PIL filed by the Indian Young Lawyers Association, which did not represent any devotee of Lord Ayyappa.
"What follows from your submission is that the original petitioners are not devotees. No devotee has approached this court challenging the practice. They are not the devotees; let it be clear. But can any devotee of Lord Ayyappa file a writ petition challenging it?" Justice B.V. Nagarathna, the second seniormost judge on the bench, asked Mehta.
The court asked: “If a non-devotee — a person who is not concerned with the temple, challenges it — can the court entertain such a petition?" Justice Nagarathna referred to Order VII Rule 11(a) under which even a civil court will not entertain a plaint if the person filing the suit has no locus standi.