Sabarimala Reference: Supreme Court Says 2006 PIL By Indian Young Lawyers Association Was Abuse Of Process

The Supreme Court's 9-judge bench hearing the petitions filed against its 2018 verdict which had set aside the traditional ban on women aged 10–50 years to enter the Sabarimala Temple today questioned the original petitioners, Indian young Lawyers Association over their filing of the PIL in the first place, way back in 2006. "It is a clear case of abuse of process of law..we are very very sorry to say this," Justice Sundresh observed today.

As the counsel for the association took the bench through the news reports on which the PIL was based, Justice BV Nagarathna asked, "How does a juristic body have any beliefs? How can you have conscience?"

When the counsel stated that the deity is said to not like young ladies and this could never be the belief of the devotees, Justice Nagarathna said, "How are you concerned with all this..you please tell us..". CJI Surya Kant also questioned the petitioners, "Are you the Chief Minister of the country?"

"Can you not work for the welfare of the bar or work for the country..other than doing this kind of work..work for the welfare of younger members of the bar who are working in rural areas, they cannot come to the cities for work, work for their welfare..rather than filing such PILs," Justice Nagarathna further pulled up the petitioner association.

Justice Aravind Kumar added to the exchanged while questioning the locus of the association. "Mr. Counsel has the association passed a resolution authorizing the filing of this PIL..is the President a signatory to this..we are asking you on facts...whether a resolution was passed by your Association?" he asked.

"We want to know why you filed this PIL at all..what did you want to achieve..", Justice Nagarathna asked. 

After five years of the review petitions being taken up last, the Supreme Court of India in March took up the batch of petitions challenging its September 2018 decision wherein a 5-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court by a 4:1 majority had ruled that the traditional ban on women aged 10–50 years entering the Sabarimala temple was unconstitutional.Notably, more than 50 review petitions have filed by devotees, religious groups, and organisations arguing that the Court interfered with essential religious practices as Lord Ayyappa devotees form a separate religious denomination.

The issue dates back to 2006, when Indian Young Lawyers Association had filed a Writ Petition challenging the validity of Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 (1965 Rules) and sought a direction to permit female devotees between the ages of 10 to 50 years to enter the Sabarimala temple without any restrictions.

By a majority of 4:1, the Supreme Court allowed the Writ Petition on 28 September 2018 holding that the devotees of Lord Ayyappa did not constitute a separate religious denomination and therefore cannot claim the benefit of Article 26 of the Constitution of India. Supreme Court also concluded that exclusion of women between the ages of 10 to 50 years from entry into the temple is violative of Article 25 of the Constitution of India. Further, Rule 3 (b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 was declared as violative of Article 25 (1) to the Constitution of India and ultra vires Section 3 of Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965.

On 14 November 2019, a five judge Constitution Bench delivered a crucial order by a 3:2 Majority wherein it kept the Review petitions pending without overturning the 2018 judgment and referred larger constitutional questions to a 9-judge bench. The 9-judge bench led by former CJI SA Bobde held that no matter is beyond the jurisdiction of a superior Court of record unless it is expressly shown to be so, under the provisions of the Constitution and held that the review petitions were maintainable.

The Sabarimala review petitions is now one of the most important constitutional debates, balancing gender equality with religious freedom. Instead of immediately revising the 2018 verdict, the Supreme Court has chosen to examine wider questions affecting multiple faiths, making the case a landmark in constitutional and religious jurisprudence. Court has now expanded the issue beyond Sabarimala to include Muslim women’s entry into mosques, Parsi women’s religious rights and Dawoodi Bohra excommunication practices along with other similar issues.

Case Title: KANTARU RAJEEVARU Vs INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION THR.ITS GENERAL SECRETARY MS. BHAKTI PASRIJA AND ORS.

Bench: CJI Surya Kant, Justices B V Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, AG Masih, R Mahadevan, Prasanna B Varale and Joymalya Bagchi

Hearing Date: April 29, 2026