SC questions basis of PILs in Sabarimala case
The Supreme Court of India criticised misuse of PILs as “private, publicity, paisa and political interest litigation” while hearing the Sabarimala case, stressing only genuine public causes deserve consideration amid concerns over frivolous petitions
New Delhi: Commenting on the misuse of PILs, the Supreme Court on Tuesday remarked that Public Interest Litigation has now become ‘Private Interest Litigation’, ‘Publicity Interest Litigation’, ‘Paisa Interest Litigation’ and ‘Political Interest Litigation’.
This observation came from a nine-judge Constitution bench while they were hearing petitions regarding discrimination against women at religious sites, including the Sabarimala temple in Kerala, as well as the scope of religious freedom across various faiths. The bench comprised Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh,
Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi. The top court questioned the objective of the Indian Young Lawyers Association over its 2006 PIL challenging the prohibition of women aged 10 to 50 from entering the Sabarimala
Temple in Kerala. Advocate Ravi Prakash Gupta, representing the Indian Young Lawyers Association, argued that the PIL was based on four newspaper articles published in June 2006.
In response, the CJI remarked that the PIL should have been dismissed outright. “How does this article give the cause of action to file a PIL? It is easy to get articles written for the sake of filing PILs,” the bench said.
Justice Nagarathna added, “We have been entertaining PILs in High Courts and in the Supreme Court for the general public who need it. Not for articles being written in newspapers. “Public Interest Litigation has now become Private Interest Litigation, Publicity Interest Litigation, Paisa Interest Litigation and Political Interest Litigation. All are called PILs, but we entertain only real and genuine PILs,” she said.
She also noted that the CJI receives hundreds of letters daily, questioning whether they could all be turned into PILs. The hearing is underway.
A five-judge Constitution bench had lifted the ban preventing women between the ages of 10 and 50 from entering the Sabarimala Ayyappa temple in a 4:1 majority verdict in September 2018, ruling that the centuries-old Hindu religious practice was illegal and unconstitutional.
