Supreme Court: Original Sabarimala PIL should be thrown away

NEW DELHI: The nine-judge Supreme Court bench headed by CJI Surya Kant on Tuesday said the Supreme Court should completely “throw into the dustbin” the original PIL in 2006 that led to the scrapping of the custom of restricting entry of women in the age group of 10 to 50 years at the Sabarimala Ayyappa Temple. The All India Young Lawyers Association, which filed a PIL in 2006 through its president Naushad Ali, narrated through senior advocate RP Gupta how misconduct by the tantri of the Ayyappa temple led to the filing of a petition challenging the restriction. The bench, headed by CJI Kant, said the SC can at most order an inquiry into the wrongdoing to bring the culprits to book. But according to newspaper reports, the PIL could not be entertained.“The SC entertained the PIL on the basis of ‘such documents’ which should have been thrown in the dustbin. The position was generated based on newspaper reports. The SC should ensure expedited action against the culprits and nothing more,” the bench said. The nine-judge bench consists of CJI Kant, Justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine G Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi. Justice Kumar asked the lawyers’ body whether the resolution to file the PIL had been passed and whether the group was a registered body. Gupta said there was no resolution yet and that although Noshad Ali was only an honorary lender, he and his lawyers had received threats. “Subsequently, CJI Dipak Misra (the architect of this controversial judgment) provided security for the petitioner and its counsel. Then CJI Misra said that even if the petitioner wanted to withdraw the PIL, the court would not allow it,” Gupta informed. CJI Kant remarked: “So, this is actually a petition filed by the petitioner organization in law (to be entertained by the court suo motu)?” The suggestion that the matter was actually orchestrated by the bench headed by the then CJI Misra found some corroboration in Justice Nagarathna’s remarks: “This is a realistic assessment of the CJI (Kant).”Justice Nagaratna said: “The former CJI provided security cover to you and the chairman of the petitioner organization. He could have ensured that there was no security threat to you by not entertaining the petition. Why would a non-believer in Ayyappa question a temple custom that has been continued for decades based on the faith and beliefs of devotees?” “You are the chief priest of the country questioning temple customs and saying how can the Ayyappa temple in Sabarimala have such customs,” she said. Judge Sandresh said this appeared to be a clear abuse of legal process. Justice Nagarathna said SC is now taking cognizance of genuine PIL and strongly opposed private publicity paisa political interest litigation