Supreme Court Questions PIL Standing of Non‑Devotees in Sabarimala Women‑Entry Review

The Supreme Court’s nine‑judge bench is examining whether a non‑devotee organization can challenge Sabarimala’s women‑entry ban via a Public Interest Litigation, raising questions on the standing to invoke Articles 25 and 26. The outcome will clarify the scope of PILs in religious matters and influence future judicial activism.

The nine‑judge bench of the Supreme Court is hearing a reference on the constitutional validity of the ban on women aged 10‑50 entering the Sabarimala temple. The bench is probing whether a PIL filed by a non‑devotee can challenge a religious custom. Key Developments Justice BV Nagarathna asked the Solicitor General if the petitioner, the Indian Young Lawyers Association , was a body of devotees; the Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta , confirmed it was not. The bench highlighted a procedural issue: a non‑devotee filing a civil suit would be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for lack of cause of action. Chief Justice Surya Kant reiterated that only persons personally aggrieved can invoke Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. Senior advocates argued both for and against the maintainability of the petition, citing the original 2018 judgment that struck down the ban on constitutional grounds. The Solicitor General raised a hypothetical: could a PIL demand entry of Muslim women into mosques? Important Facts The 2018 judgment by a five‑judge bench held that the gender‑based restriction violated the right to equality and freedom of religion. The current reference involves a nine‑judge bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi . The petitioners argue that the PIL is a tool for those unable to approach the courts directly; the respondents warn against misuse of PILs for vested interests. UPSC Relevance Understanding the limits of PIL standing is essential for questions on judicial activism, secularism, and the balance between individual rights and religious freedom. Articles 25 and 26 are core constitutional provisions examined in the UPSC syllabus. The case also illustrates the role of the Solicitor General in defending government positions. Way Forward The bench is expected to first decide the locus‑standi question—whether a non‑devotee can invoke constitutional provisions concerning a religious practice. A clear pronouncement will shape future PILs involving religious customs and may lead to stricter scrutiny of petitions lacking direct grievance. Aspirants should monitor the final judgment for its impact on judicial interpretation of Articles 25 and 26, and on the evolving jurisprudence of PILs in India.

<p>The nine‑judge bench of the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Supreme Court of India — the apex judicial body that interprets the Constitution and adjudicates on constitutional disputes (GS2: Polity)">Supreme Court</span> is hearing a reference on the constitutional validity of the ban on women aged 10‑50 entering the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Sabarimala Temple — a prominent Hindu shrine dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, where traditional customs restrict entry of women of menstruating age (GS2: Polity)">Sabarimala</span> temple. The bench is probing whether a <span class="key-term" data-definition="Public Interest Litigation (PIL) — a legal mechanism that allows any person or organization to approach the courts for the protection of public rights, even without a direct personal grievance (GS2: Polity)">PIL</span> filed by a non‑devotee can challenge a religious custom.</p> <h3>Key Developments</h3> <ul> <li>Justice <strong>BV Nagarathna</strong> asked the Solicitor General if the petitioner, the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Indian Young Lawyers Association — a legal advocacy group that filed the 2018 PIL challenging Sabarimala's gender ban (GS2: Polity)">Indian Young Lawyers Association</span>, was a body of devotees; the Solicitor General, <strong>Tushar Mehta</strong>, confirmed it was not.</li> <li>The bench highlighted a procedural issue: a non‑devotee filing a civil suit would be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for lack of cause of action.</li> <li>Chief Justice <strong>Surya Kant</strong> reiterated that only persons personally aggrieved can invoke Articles <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 25 — guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion (GS2: Polity)">25</span> and <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 26 — provides the right to manage religious affairs and institutions (GS2: Polity)">26</span> of the Constitution.</li> <li>Senior advocates argued both for and against the maintainability of the petition, citing the original 2018 judgment that struck down the ban on constitutional grounds.</li> <li>The Solicitor General raised a hypothetical: could a PIL demand entry of Muslim women into mosques?</li> </ul> <h3>Important Facts</h3> <ul> <li>The 2018 judgment by a five‑judge bench held that the gender‑based restriction violated the right to equality and freedom of religion.</li> <li>The current reference involves a nine‑judge bench comprising Justices <strong>BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan</strong> and <strong>Joymalya Bagchi</strong>.</li> <li>The petitioners argue that the PIL is a tool for those unable to approach the courts directly; the respondents warn against misuse of PILs for vested interests.</li> </ul> <h3>UPSC Relevance</h3> <p>Understanding the limits of <span class="key-term" data-definition="Public Interest Litigation (PIL) — a mechanism allowing courts to address broader social issues, crucial for GS2: Polity and GS4: Ethics questions on judicial activism (GS2: Polity)">PIL</span> standing is essential for questions on judicial activism, secularism, and the balance between individual rights and religious freedom. Articles <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 25 — freedom of religion, a frequent topic in GS2: Polity exams (GS2: Polity)">25</span> and <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 26 — right of religious denominations to manage their own affairs, relevant for GS2: Polity (GS2: Polity)">26</span> are core constitutional provisions examined in the UPSC syllabus. The case also illustrates the role of the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Solicitor General of India — the chief legal advisor to the Government of India, representing the Union in the Supreme Court (GS2: Polity)">Solicitor General</span> in defending government positions.</p> <h3>Way Forward</h3> <p>The bench is expected to first decide the locus‑standi question—whether a non‑devotee can invoke constitutional provisions concerning a religious practice. A clear pronouncement will shape future PILs involving religious customs and may lead to stricter scrutiny of petitions lacking direct grievance. Aspirants should monitor the final judgment for its impact on judicial interpretation of Articles 25 and 26, and on the evolving jurisprudence of PILs in India.</p>

Key Facts

Background & Context

UPSC Syllabus Connections

Mains Answer Angle

Full Article

Practice Questions

Prelims MCQ

Mains Short Answer

Mains Essay