The Supreme Court today remarked, while questioning the locus standi of the Indian Young Lawyers Association, which had filed the PIL in the Sabarimala matter in 2006, that its President, Advocate Naushad Ahmed Khan, should have attempted to put his house in order first before challenging the custom in the Temple.  

During the ongoing hearing in the Sabarimala reference before the nine-Judge Bench, Justice M.M. Sundresh remarked that had Naushad Khan made this effort to clean his own house, he would not have been available to file the PIL on the Sabarimala temple.

Advocate Ravi Prakash Gupta, appearing for the Indian Young Lawyers Association, submitted that Naushad Khan received threats because he filed the PIL. He submitted that the president was merely a "namesake" leader, and yet he received threats.

"He was simply a name-lender President. He was not knowing anything about Sabarimala. But an impression has been given that everything has been engineered by a Muslim fellow", Gupta submitted.

"And he started getting threats from all over the world. Then Chief Justice Dipak Misra was shocked. The Affidavit has been sworn by the General Secretary. Vakalatnama is also by her. Naushad has nothing to do", Gupta added. 

Justice MM Sundresh remarked, "As you are saying, Naushad is a very smart fellow... Had he made this attempt to clean his own house, he would not have been available to file this PIL..."

Justice Sundresh further said, "If he made an attempt to put his own house in order..."

Justice B. V. Nagarathna agreed and said, "He had no interest in the matter."

Gupta agreed, "He does not have any interest".   

Justice Nagarathna asked, "Then why was it (PIL) entertained by this Court?" 


Apart from that, at the beginning of the arguments today, Justice Nagarathna raised a query, "How does a juristic body, your Association, have a belief? It is the individual who has belief and conscience."

Justice Aravind Kumar then asked, "Who is the President of this Association?"

Advocate Gupta replied, "President is Naushad Ali."

Justice Nagarathna asked, "How is he a believer?"

When Gupta was responding by stating that the practice was never part of the belief in lord Ayyapa, Justice Nagarathna asked, "How are you concerned with all this? You please tell us."

Chief Justice said, "Are you the chief priest of the country?"

Justice Nagarathna added, "Mind your business!"

Justice Nagarathna remarked sternly, "Young Lawyers Association has no other business? They can't work for the welfare of the Bar, or assist the bench or for the legal system of the country? Other than doing this kind of work?... Work for the Bar, work for younger members, work for their welfare. Those who are struggling in the country from rural areas...they have difficulty coming to the cities to argue cases. They are brilliant minds. Work for them, rather than doing this kind of work in the Supreme Court."

Justice Kumar questioned Gupta, "Has your Association passed a resolution before filing the PIL? Is your President a signatory?"

Gupta responded by saying that Chief Justice Dipak Misra had refused to withdraw the petition and that there were threats to the Petitioner as well as its Counsel.

Justice Aravind Kumar said, "We are simply asking whether a resolution was passed, if so, whether the President is a signatory to it, if not, what is his locus..."

Gupta said, "Justice Dipak Mishra made it very clear that it is a Court matter, even if the Petitioner tries to withdraw, we will not allow."

Chief Justice said, "Do not take the names of individual judges; he was not only a judge but also the CJI...Don't attribute to individual judges...The question is simple: was there a resolution? How was the Association formed?"

Gupta replied, "To my knowledge, there was no resolution. It is a registered body."

Justice Sundresh said, "This is a clear case of abuse of the process of law....We are very sorry to say this...."

Justice Nagarathna said, "We want to know why you filed this PIL at all. What was the object that  you wanted to achieve?"

Gupta's answer to the question of locus standi was that Justice Dipak Misra had passed an order refusing permission to withdraw the PIL on account of the threat to the Petitioner. 

During the course of his further arguments, Gupta said, "Lord Ayyappa was a Buddhist."

Justice Kumar immediately intervened and said, "You are saying that you are a believer, and you are saying that you are having faith, and now you say Lord Ayyappa was himself someone else. What is this?"

Justice Nagarathna asked, "What is your belief? We want to know."

After hearing his response, the Court cautioned the counsel against making irrelevant submissions, with the CJI reminding him that while the court's time was being consumed, the arguments needed to remain focused on the legal questions referred to the larger bench.

During the hearing, the Court made scathing remarks against the Indian Young Lawyers Association, the original petitioner in the Sabarimala PIL. The counsel for the association opened his arguments by admitting that the litigation was initiated based on four specific media pieces: articles by Barkha Dutt, Sharvani Pandit, and Vir Sanghvi, alongside a news report by Ramesh Babu regarding an alleged sex scandal involving the temple’s head priest. The Court questioned whether the PIL could have been entertained based on news articles. 

Previously, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising concluded her arguments by arguing that the argument for non-intervention of the Court in the present religious matter is a "direct attack on the right of judicial review."

Justice B.V. Nagarathna questioned the "one-day" devotion of a petitioner visiting the shrine at age 40, leading Jaising to defend introspection as the heart of religion.

Cause Title: Kantaru Rejeevaru Vs Indian Young Lawyers Association; Sabarimala Custom Protection Forum Vs Indian Young Lawyers Association [R.P.(C) No. 3358/2018 in W.P. (C) No. 373/2006]

Tags: