Non-Devotees? SC Questions Locus of NGO On Whose Plea Women Entry Ban In Sabarimala Was Lifted In 2018

Supreme Court’s Justice BV Nagarathna, who is part of the 9-judge Constitution Bench hearing Sabarimala Women entry case, on Wednesday questioned the locus-standi (legal right) of original petitioners - Indian Young Lawyers Association-on whose petition Supreme Court in 2018 lifted the women entry ban and allowed women of all ages to enter the hill shrine.Till then women of menstruating age (10-55 years) were not allowed into the temple considering the unique religious character of the deity Lord Ayyappa as worshippers of the temple believed in the manifestation of the deity as a "Naishtik Brahmachari" (Celibate).Why should this court be concerned with non-devotees. Was it maintainable? We will examine this. we will have to hear on this aspect

first. Which fundamental rights of their's were violated? How did a person not concerned with prayers or worship come to court and how was it admitted? What was the cause of action? what is the connection? Justice Nagarathna asked adding "No devotee has challenged it, it is the person who has no concern".They are not devotees ? But… let us be clear. Will any devotee of Lord Ayyappa file a writ petition challenging this (exclusion of women)? …If a non-devotee, a person who is not concerned with that temple, challenges it, can this Court entertain such a writ petition? Mr. Solicitor, we have all been trained… we have all practiced in trial courts. If a suit is filed by an association, the first question would be under Order VII Rule 11 a ...no cause of action, no causal connection... the plaint would be rejected, she said."How a person not concerned with prayers and worship come to court? Why should this court be concerned with non-devotees? is there a cause of action?", the judge told Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta who was representing Centre which was supporting the review petitioners challenging the women entry.Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant noted that the 2018 Sabarimala judgment had held that the court can intervene when a grave constitutional issue is brought before it, regardless of the locus of the petitioner. CJI added that if the locus was an issue, then the writ petition should have been dismissed in 2006 itself, when it was filed.These comments were made by Justice Nagarathna after SG Mehta pointed out to the Constitution Bench that the judgment had come in a petition filed by Indian young lawyers Association who were non-believers and asked, “In a matter of religious freedom can a non-believer come to court?”The discussion on the contentious issue of locus of petitioners came up after SG Mehta said while the SC in 2018 took into consideration right to equality, right against discrimination and right to freedom of petitioners who are non-believers, the SC Bench did not consider the corresponding rights of believers, devotees and the verdict violated constitutional right to preserve one's customs and traditions.Solicitor General Tushar Mehta pointed out that this was exactly one of the questions referred to the 9-judge bench - Whether a person not belonging to a religious denomination or religious group can question a practice of that religious denomination or religious group by filing a PIL?THE COURTROOM EXCHANGE:Justice BV Nagarathna: Who is the original petitioner? ( On whose petition women entry was lifted).SG Mehta: The original petitioner is the Indian Young Lawyers Association. They are non-believers. Can in a matter of religious freedom a non-believer come to court?Justice Nagarathna: They are not devotees. But… let us be clear. Can any devotee of Lord Ayyappa file a writ petition challenging this? It is not… If a non-devotee, a person who is not concerned with that temple, challenges it, can this Court entertain such a writ petition? So, Mr. Solicitor, we have all been trained… we have all practiced in trial courts. If a suit is filed by an association, the first question would be under Order VII Rule 11 a... no cause of action, no causal connection... the plaint would be rejected.How a person not concerned with prayers and worship come to court? why should this court be concerned with non-devotees? Is there a cause of action?SG Mehta reads out from Justice Indu Malhotra's dissenting judgment of 2018: “Neither the Indian Young Lawyers Association nor other petitioners therein averred that they are devotees of Lord Ayyappa; that they were denied their right to visit the temple at Sabarimala and that such denial has resulted in violation of their fundamental rights. Rights of the petitioners were not violated by the Sabarimala prohibition, hence they had no business to get a remedy in court under Article 32."SG Mehta: These days we see kind of PILs being filed but can a non-believer come in a matter of religious freedom?CJI: Yes, these days, past one-decade situations has worsened, people come with agendas, we had laid down guidelines but its not been adhered to.Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for one of respondents: "Then this court shall discharge the reference issues (the seven questions) and start begin hearing on merits. We have a lot to say."