'Why are you concerned with all of this?': SC questions intent of PIL that led to Sabarimala judgment

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the locus and intent of the Indian Young Lawyers’ Association in filing the public interest litigation (PIL) that led to the much-debated Sabarimala judgment, with a nine-judge Constitution Bench repeatedly asking why a lawyers’ body had chosen to intervene in a matter concerning religious practices.

Hearing the Sabarimala review reference, the Bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, A.G. Masih, Prasanna B. Varale, R. Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi posed a series of sharp questions to advocate Ravi Prakash Gupta, appearing for the petitioner association.

"Who are you? Why are you concerned with all this?" Justice Nagarathna asked, repeatedly questioning how a juristic entity could claim a right to worship or challenge temple customs.

"What good has come out of it?" the judge further asked, expressing strong disapproval of the manner in which the PIL was instituted.

The apex court raised concerns over whether the association had authorised the litigation through any formal resolution. When the counsel expressed a lack of clarity on this aspect, Justice Sundresh remarked that the case appeared to be "nothing but an abuse of the process of law".

The apex court further took note of the submission that the association’s then President, Noushad Ali, was allegedly a “name-lender” who was not aware of the litigation.

Justice Sundresh remarked that had he been actively involved, "he would not have been available to file this PIL".