During the eleventh day of hearings in the Sabarimala reference, the Supreme Court scrutinised the India Young Lawyers Association for basing its 2006 PIL on newspaper articles about women’s entry defiling the temple. The bench queried how a juristic body could claim a right to worship, and whether public interest litigation was being misused for private, political or publicity motives.
On the eleventh day of arguments before the nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court in the Sabarimala reference case, the India Young Lawyers Association (IYLA) faced sharp questioning. On Tuesday 5th May, 2026, the apex court highlighted concerns over the association's standing, objectives, and the basis of its original petition.
In 2006, the India Young Lawyers Association filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Supreme Court, citing that the Sabarimala Temple banning women of menstruating age from entering the temple is a violation of their fundamental rights.
The bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B. Varale, R. Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi, raised several pointed observations regarding the IYLA’s role in the proceedings. The court questioned the IYLA’s counsel, who was representing the group whose president is Naushad Ali, in a manner that reflected scepticism about the petition’s seriousness and utility before the court.
In the hearing, the apex court questioned both the intent behind the PIL and and the manner in which it was filed by the association. The PIL which sought women’s entry into the Sabarimala Temple
A key revelation during the hearing came when the IYLA’s counsel, Advocate Ravi Prakash Gupta, disclosed that the original PIL that challenged the centuries-old tradition of barring women of menstruating age entry into the Sabarimala temple, was based on four newspaper stories published in June 2006. These included reports titled ‘The Sex Slump Felt Sabarimala’ and ‘Touching Feet and Attracting Touches.’ The counsel submitted that PIL was triggered by news reports suggesting that the temple was considered defiled after the entry of a woman.
The bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, observed that a PIL based solely on newspaper reports should not have been entertained. The court remarked that such material should have been dismissed at the threshold of the court.
The bench further questioned why the PIL was filed at all and whether it had led to any meaningful outcome. It inquired how a juristic entity like the association could claim a right to worship. Judges repeatedly asked whether the organisation consisted of genuine believers and whether it had any direct stake in the religious practices it sought to challenge.
Justice Nagarathna also questioned why the organisation chose to pursue this issue instead of other welfare causes. She suggested that efforts could have been directed toward supporting legal professionals or disadvantaged communities.
Young Lawyers Association has no other business? Can’t they work for the welfare of the bar or assist the bench for the legal system of this country?… this kind of work? …..work for the bar, work for younger members, work for their welfare…. Those who are struggling in the country from rural areas, they have difficulty coming to the cities to argue cases.Justice BV Nagarathna
Justice Nagarathna raised broader concerns about individuals without faith questioning established religious customs. She stressed that courts must be cautious in allowing challenges that may interfere with deeply held beliefs.
In another significant statement, Justice Nagarathna said that religious practices shouldn’t extend to the exclusion of certain castes. “That is not religion, neither is it religious practice,” she said.
She continued that public interest litigation has now become private interest litigation, publicity interest litigation, paisa (money) interest litigation, and political interest litigation.
The Sabarimala Temple located in Keralam’s Pathanamthitta district has had a long standing tradition of barring women of menstruating age— from age 10 to 50— from entering the temple. The temple is dedicated to worshiping Lord Ayapppa in his Nashthik Brahmachari (eternal celibate) form, which is cited as the reason behind the restriction on women’s entry.
See also: Sabarimala Reference Case: Supreme Court Asks— Who Really Has the Rights to Enter a Temple?
In 2006, the matter gained legal grounding and reached the steps of the Supreme Court when the India Young Lawyers Association filed a PIL questioning the constitutional validity of the restriction. Over the years, the case’s scope snowballed and expanded into a wider debate over the balance between religion practices and fundamental rights.
In September 2018, a five-judge Constitution Bench led by then Chief Justice Dipak Misra delivered a 4:1 verdict, holding that the exclusion of women in the specified age group was unconstitutional. The judgment triggered widespread protests and unrest in Kerala. Subsequently, review petitions were filed, and in 2019 a Constitution Bench referred broader constitutional questions to a larger nine-judge bench. These questions pertain to the extent of judicial review in religious matters, the concept of essential religious practices, and the interplay between individual rights and denominational freedoms.
The matter continues to be heard by the nine-judge bench, with implications extending beyond Sabarimala to similar disputes involving religious customs across communities. The next hearing of the matter will take place on 6th may 2026.
Suggested reading: