Sabarimala PIL admitted in 2006, dismissed now: Supreme Court

NEW DELHI: Acknowledging the rampant misuse of public interest litigation for ulterior motives or pursuing one’s own interests, India’s Supreme Court on Wednesday said it would dismiss the petition if it was filed by a group of lawyers currently challenging the Sabarimala custom of banning entry of menstruating women.This remark was made by a bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, AG Masih, PB Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi, then Solicitor General Tushar Mehta Stating that the custom has not been challenged by devotees of Lord Ayyappa, it argued that the Supreme Court struck down it as unconstitutional due to misreading and misapplied the “constitutional morality” test to judicially incomprehensible concepts of belief, belief and religious practice.He said the attributes of Lord Ayyappa considered by devotees of Sabarimala to be those of Nestik Brahmachari cannot be examined on the anvil of the Western-imported concept of constitutional ethics, which is suitable for testing the validity of the actions of the state or the holder of a constitutional office.Justice Nagarathna agreed and said even if a civil suit was filed by a group of lawyers, it would be dismissed for lack of cause of action. CJI Kant agreed but also sounded a note of caution, noting that the PIL was filed as far back as 2006 and there was a court judgment, “Our task is to determine the scope and scope of judicial interference in religious matters,” he said.Mehta pointed to the corrupting influence of Western thinking on the Joseph Shine case, which decriminalized adultery on the grounds that this outdated provision violated women’s dignity, freedom and equality by shackling women’s sexual freedom and adding the burden of fidelity. The SG clarified that the provision could be struck down on grounds of discrimination and that he would not contest the outcome of the case. However, he said that fidelity is equal for men and women in marriage and that regulations restricting extramarital affairs cannot be called constraints on sexual freedom. Even more concerning, he said, is the social norm known as “mob morality,” which the courts have inexplicably used to overturn constitutional morality.Justice Nagarathna said: “What was considered immoral and obscene in the 1950s is no longer considered narrow-minded and outdated. This is the problem in India today. But public morality is not static.”On the question whether a person who does not belong to a religious sect or religious group can challenge the practices of that religious sect or religious group by filing a PIL, Mehta said that PIL was devised by the SC in the Bandhua Mukti Morcha case in 1984 as a tool to bolster the grievances of marginalized groups who had no recourse to courts to protect their fundamental rights.It adopted a liberal approach in testing the stand of the person filing a PIL, but this has now become a vehicle for anyone not connected with the issue to misuse the strict stand terms to file a PIL. With access to justice changing dramatically, courts must adhere to strict plaintiff position rules to prevent misuse of PILs, especially in matters related to religion, customs, beliefs and beliefs.During the hearing, the Center also argued that jurisdiction should not be freely defined and the court agreed to do so. CJI Kant said, “In the past few years, courts have started enforcing strict stand rules on PILs. The Constitutional Court is very cautious in entertaining PILs because someone has ulterior motives or to further their agenda.” The argument will continue on Thursday.