The hearing before a 9-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the case surrounding entry of women to Sabarimala temple and other larger religious issues was privy to some sharp remarks and questions posed by the Bench to counsel appearing for the lead petitioner in the original case, Indian Young Lawyers' Association

It was a public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed by the body which had led to the Supreme Court's 2018 verdict allowing women of all ages to enter Sabarimala temple, thereby triggering widespread protests in Kerala.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant along with Justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi today asked why a lawyers body chose to file a PIL petition to lift the customary restrictions on women entering the Sabarimala temple.

“Who are you? Why are you concerned with all this, you please tell us,” said Justice BV Nagarathna.

“I am a believer,” the lawyer said.

“Are you the Chief Priest of the country?” CJI Kant questioned.

“How are you concerned? Mind your business!” Justice BV Nagarathna added.

A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court is examining seven important legal questions concerning religious rights and freedoms in India. The top court began hearing the reference arising out of the Sabarimala review case on April 7.

The Court's verdict will have a major impact on various cases, including the case concerning whether women of menstruating ages can be allowed to enter the Sabarimala temple in Kerala.

The reference is connected to the top court's September 2018 verdict in which a 5-judge Constitution Bench, by a majority of 4:1, allowed women of all ages to enter the hilltop shrine in Kerala. That decision overturned the tradition that restricted the entry of women of menstruating age.

Dozens of review petitions were filed questioning the correctness of this ruling. In November 2019, the Supreme Court pronounced its judgment on the review petitions challenging the 2018 verdict. It held that larger issues pertaining to the Essential Religious Practices Test, interplay between Articles 25 and 26 on one hand and Article 14 on the other and the conflict between the judgments in the Shirur Mutt case and Durgah Committee case will have to be decided by a larger Bench. The nine-judge Bench is now considering the same.

The reference verdict may also have an impact on pending cases regarding the entry of Muslim Women in Dargahs /Mosques, excommunication of Parsi Women married to non-Parsis, the practice of female genital mutilation and excommunication practices in the Dawoodi Bohra community.

During arguments today, the lawyer representing the Indian Young Lawyers' Association questioned a report by a temple tanthri which said that Lord Ayappa does not like young ladies entering the temple.

“Is it in regard of Lord Ayyappa or is it an insult of Lord Ayappa, (to say) that the ‘deity does not like young ladies’? This is not the belief. This could never be the belief,” he argued.

The submission, however, prompted the Court to question why a lawyers' association was concerned with such matters at all in the first place. The Court asked if a juristic entity like a lawyers association have religious beliefs.

“I (women members of the association) am first a woman, then I am a Hindu, then I am any other thing! My womanhood has been attacked. And you are putting words into Lord Ayyappa? That Lord Ayyappa does not like young ladies?” the lawyer replied.

“The Young Lawyers Association has no other business? They can’t work for the welfare of the Bar or assist the Bench or the legal system of this country?” Justice Nagarathna retorted.

“There are so many PILs,“ the lawyer contended.

“Work for the Bar, work for the younger members, work for their welfare, those who are struggling in the country from rural areas, they have difficulty coming to the city to argue cases, they are brilliant minds.. Work for them, rather doing this kind (of work) in the Supreme Court!” Justice Nagarathna replied.

Justice Arvind Kumar then asked whether the association had passed any resolution authorising the filing of a PIL in this matter, and whether the association's President was a signatory. Justice Nagarathna further asked whether the association was a registered one.

Moments earlier, Justice Kumar had also sought the name of the association's President. Notably, the fact that the association's President was a Muslim had prompted some controversy in 2018.

In his response, the association's counsel today said that the association was registered, and that as far as he was aware, no resolution was passed.

Justice Sundresh went on to urge the counsel to address the Court only on larger legal questions framed for the nine-judge Bench to consider, and not on the facts of the Sabarimala case. He also joined in criticising the association for taking up this issue in the first place.

"Don’t embarrass and expose yourself and embarrass the Court by taking up causes like this. We can’t say anything beyond this. It is a clear case of abuse of process of law. We are very sorry to say this. Alright, now, what do you want to say on seven issues framed? At least now, we don’t want to embarrass you. Please go into the legal issues and make your submissions. We are reasonable enough to hear you. Please tell us on the issues framed.. We have said at the beginning, we will not address issues of fact. That will be decided at later point of time. We are purely on the question of law. That’s what we are asking, if you have nothing else to offer, say it and we will go to the next point of law," Justice Sundresh said.

The association's counsel told the Bench that the Court itself did not allow the withdrawal of the PIL when one of the petitioners sought to drop the case.

He added that a Bench led by former Chief Justice of India (CJ) Dipak Misra had said that the PIL cannot be withdrawn merely because of threats or because of the identity of the association's President.

The Court then cautioned the lawyer against taking the name of any individual judge in this manner.

"We want to know why you filed this PIL at all? What was it that you wanted to achieve? What good has come out of it?" Justice Nagarathna added.

These issues were addressed when PIL was being admitted, the lawyer replied.

“What is your belief? That is what we want to know," the Bench persisted.

“I would not enter any temple unless I have belief. There is a temple of Lord Hanuman where you have to offer bottle of drinks, just 4 km from here. I do not enter, because I don’t believe in it. I don’t want to offer a bottle of drinks to Lord Hanuman, so I will not enter. If I am entering a temple, masjid or church, we have to follow the norms. So far as faith is concerned - the belief extracted from Kerala High Court Division Bench judgment, after research they (tanthri) have said Lord Ayyappa does not like young ladies. This would not be the belief to the exclusion of others," the lawyer maintained.

The hearing is in progress.

[Live Coverage]