It Should Have Been Thrown Into Dustbin: Apex Court Asks How Sabarimala PIL Was Entertained Based On News Report About Sexual Misconduct By Head Priest
The Court also remarked that it is easy to get articles written just for the sake of filing PILs.
During the Sabarimala Reference, today, the Supreme Court of India made scathing remarks against the Indian Young Lawyers Association (IYLA), the petitioner in the original Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on the Sabarimala issue.
The Counsel for the Petitioner in the PIL submitted that the PIL was filed based on articles authored by Barkha Dutt, Sharvani Pandit and Vir Sanghvi criticising the restrictions on the entry of women of a certain age to the temple and a news report by one Ramesh Babu about an alleged sex scandal involving the Head Priest of the Temple.
The Court's sharp rebuke highlighted a perceived misuse of the judicial system, with Justice Nagarathna suggesting the association should focus on the welfare of struggling rural lawyers rather than pursuing "article-driven" litigation that lacks a genuine resolution from its own members.
Advocate Ravi Prakash Gupta, appearing for the Indian Young Lawyers Association, submitted at the begining of his arguments, "There were four articles: one by Barkha Dutt- 'Scent of a Woman', then there was 'Touching Faith', an actress touches the deity and causes an upror- Sharvani Pandit, then the third was 'keeping the faith, losing our religion' by Vir Sanghvi and the fourth one is very important, it is the 'Sex slur fells Sabarimala Priest' (by Ramesh Babu), which I have already annexed to the written submissions also. This was also part of the Writ Petition. There was an allegation that the priest has been found in the brothel with the prostitute. This was the allegation. I have annexed that particular news item."
Subsequently, when he was questioned about the locus standi of the Petitioners to maintain the PIL, he submitted, "The then Chief Justice Dipak Misra made it very clear that even if you intend to withdraw this petition, I will not allow you, because it is a court matter now."
To this, Justice BV Nagarathna remarked, "Mr Counsel, since you're referring to the learned former Chief Justice, with great respect, rather than ensuring there was security provided to the advocates, he could have ensured that there was no need for a security threat at all, by not entertaining this petition. With great respect, we are saying this."
Justice M. M. Sundresh said, "We have heard you graciously, and we are not saying much more because we are sitting in a constitution bench...all that we can say is that this is an abuse of the process of law."
CJI Surya Kant said, "Your best argument would be that this is a de facto PIL, de jure filed by the Association."
Subsequently, the CJI remarked, "Is this the article you relied upon, page 121 (Sex slur fells Sabarimala Priest)? And we entertain PILs based upon these kinds of documents, it should have been thrown outright into dustbin! A news item that some... The law will take its own course. If somebody had committed a misconduct, the Court should have directed that- try him, hold a day-to-day trial and make sure that he is convicted!"
"We are only on the locus which is generated on the basis of a news item regarding a criminal misconduct committed by someone. The Court should have taken suo moto cognizance, directed day-to-day trial and ensured that if he is guilty of this offence, the law must take care of it. That is all. How does this article give you a cause of action to rake up the issue (of entry of women into Sabarimala), ultimately, which we adjudicated?"
Justice BV Nagarathna said, "It is easy to get articles written just for the sake of filing PILs. We are very much aware. We are entertaining PILs for genuine causes, for getting relief to the public, who are really in need of it. Not articles written in the newspaper which are the basis of PILs entertained by this Court."
CJI Kant remarked, "This is not even an article. It is a misconduct conducted by an individual. He might be holding a religious position, a misconduct is a misconduct. Nobody can be above the law. If as a priest, if he had committed some offence under the penal law, the Court's action should have been to make sure that if he is guilty, he must be brought before the Court. That is all."
The Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, with Justices B.V. Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, A.G. Masih, Prasanna B. Varale, R. Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi, is hearing review petitions and writ petitions arising out of the 2018 Sabarimala Judgment, which allowed women of all ages to enter into Lord Ayyappa's temple. The pleas were filed, inter alia, regarding the entry of Muslim women into mosques and dargahs, and the rights of Parsi women to enter Fire Temples if they have married outside their community and the legal validity of female genital mutilation within the Dawoodi Bohra community.
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]