Sabarimala Temple : Supreme Court Asks Centre How Non-Devotees Could Challenge The Customs

The Supreme Court has asked the Centre how persons who are not devotees of Lord Ayyappa could challenge the customs of the Sabarimala temple in Kerala.

The remark was made by a nine-judge Constitution bench hearing petitions related to discrimination against women at religious places, including the Sabarimala temple in Kerala, and on the ambit and scope of religious freedom practised by multiple faiths.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Centre how persons who are not devotees of Lord Ayyappa could challenge the customs of the Sabarimala temple in Kerala.

The remark was made by a nine-judge Constitution bench hearing petitions related to discrimination against women at religious places, including the Sabarimala temple in Kerala, and on the ambit and scope of religious freedom practised by multiple faiths.

The bench comprises Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, 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 has framed seven questions on the scope of religious freedom. One of the questions was 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 public interest litigation (PIL).

As the bench was about to rise for the day, Justice Nagarathna sought to know from Solicitor General Tushar Mehta as to who were the petitioners in the Sabarimala case.

“What follows from what you have just submitted is that the original petitioners are not devotees. No devotee has approached this court challenging this. Then, who are the writ petitioners who are assailing this?” she asked.

The bench comprises Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, 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 has framed seven questions on the scope of religious freedom. One of the questions was 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 public interest litigation (PIL).

As the bench was about to rise for the day, Justice Nagarathna sought to know from Solicitor General Tushar Mehta as to who were the petitioners in the Sabarimala case.

“What follows from what you have just submitted is that the original petitioners are not devotees. No devotee has approached this court challenging this. Then, who are the writ petitioners who are assailing this?” she asked.