“Publicity, Paisa, Politics”: Supreme Court Critiques PIL Culture in Sabarimala Matter

The Supreme Court, hearing the Sabarimala reference, questioned the Young Lawyers Association on their latest public interest litigation and asked what purpose it serves. The bench remarked that the group should focus on the welfare of the bar and younger members. The judges also raised a key query: whether a deity can be said to possess belief or conscience.

This reference hearing, now on its eleventh day, revisits the wider issue of discrimination against women in religious spaces, including the Sabarimala temple in Kerala. The court is examining how such practices relate to the constitutional guarantees of religious freedom. The proceedings form part of a long-running legal and social debate across the country.

Sabarimala Supreme Court hearing: diversity, devotion and constitutional ideals

During earlier arguments, the bench underlined the importance of plural traditions in India. The court noted: "We are strong because we are diverse, and diversity is our strength, and to bring about a recognition of the diversity in denominations, Article 26 (b) protects it. By giving such protection, there is also a unity developed in the country." That observation framed much of the subsequent discussion.

Senior advocate Indira Jaising had previously argued that excluding women aged 10 to 50 from Sabarimala breaches constitutional rights. Justice B. V. Nagarathna asked how a devotee from north India could claim entry into a southern temple, highlighting the complex balance between local denominational customs and individual rights under Article 25.

Sabarimala Supreme Court hearing: submissions, cautions and court remarks

In an earlier sitting, Jaising referred to the figure of Shabari in the Ramayana, stressing that Shabari was a woman who offered berries to Shri Ram. Jaising ended that day’s submissions with a personal remark: "I am also a Shabari. You are keeping me out. That is the end of the story." The statement captured the emotional weight of the issue.

On the ninth day of the Sabarimala Supreme Court hearing, the bench clarified when the state may intervene in religious activities. The court said the state can "step in" if religious observance disrupts public order, such as blocking roads. Justice Nagarathna added that worship-related autonomy is protected only for activities that are genuinely religious, and that secular impacts allow state regulation for balance.

Earlier, on the eighth day, the Sabarimala Supreme Court hearing also featured a caution about unchecked online information. Senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul cited Shashi Tharoor’s line from an article in The Indian Express: "When the gavel falls on matters of deep-seated belief, it must do so with an awareness of the limitations of legal logic." Justice Nagarathna warned against relying on "WhatsApp university" while Kaul said, "If knowledge and wisdom come from any source, any country, any university, it should be welcome." The Chief Justice of India added that the court respects eminent individuals, yet personal opinions remain "personal opinions".

The Sabarimala Supreme Court hearing is being conducted by a nine-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant. The other judges are Justices B. V. Nagarathna, M. M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B. Varale, R. Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi. Their task is to settle key questions on religious freedom and judicial review.

The bench has framed seven questions for the Sabarimala Supreme Court hearing. These cover the scope of Article 25, the interaction between Articles 25 and 26, and whether denominational rights under Article 26 must also comply with all other fundamental rights beyond public order, morality and health. The judges will also define "morality" in Articles 25 and 26, including if it covers constitutional morality.

Another question in the Sabarimala Supreme Court hearing concerns the extent of judicial review over religious practices under Article 25. The court will interpret the phrase "Sections of Hindus" in Article 25(2)(b) and decide whether someone outside a denomination may challenge its practices through a PIL. The answers will guide future disputes involving faith, equality and state authority.