'Paisa Interest Litigation': SC slams misuse of PILs in Sabarimala hearing

The Supreme Court has questioned the motives of the Indian Young Lawyers Association’s 2006 petition, noting that PILs are increasingly becoming tools for personal gain.

In a stinging critique of the current judicial landscape, a nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that Public Interest Litigations (PILs) have largely devolved into "Paisa Interest Litigation" or "Publicity Interest Litigation." The bench, which is currently deliberating on critical questions surrounding religious freedom, expressed serious reservations about how such petitions are being leveraged in the modern era.

The verbal observations came during the ongoing hearing of the Sabarimala temple matter, which has triggered a broader debate on the intersection of individual rights and centuries-old religious traditions.

Bench questions 2006 petition motive

The top court’s scrutiny was specifically directed at the Indian Young Lawyers Association, which had filed the original petition in 2006 challenging the age-old ban on the entry of women aged 10 to 50 into the Sabarimala Ayyappa Temple in Kerala. Justice Surya Kant, part of the bench, noted that the association seemed to have little to do with the actual devotees or the ground reality of the shrine at the time.

"It has become more of a Private Interest Litigation, Publicity Interest Litigation, and now Money Interest Litigation," the bench remarked, highlighting a growing trend where litigations are filed based on newspaper reports rather than substantive personal or community injury.

Concerns over 'proxy' litigation

Sources familiar with the proceedings said the court expressed concern over whether the original petitioners were truly "aggrieved parties." The bench noted that the 2006 PIL was largely constructed around media reports. The judges suggested that organizations should perhaps focus more on the welfare of their own members rather than seeking judicial intervention in complex religious customs where they may not have a direct stake.

This line of questioning shifts the focus back to the locus standi—the right to bring a lawsuit to court—which has been a point of contention in the Sabarimala case for years.

The Sabarimala legal timeline

To understand the weight of these remarks, one must look back at the 2018 verdict. A five-judge bench, in a 4:1 majority, had previously lifted the ban on women of menstruating age, calling the practice unconstitutional. However, that decision led to a massive wave of review petitions and sparked a nationwide debate on whether the court should interfere in "essential religious practices."

The current nine-judge bench was subsequently formed to address larger issues, including whether a person who does not belong to a particular religion can challenge its practices through a PIL.

Focus on religious freedom

The court is currently dealing with a massive bundle of petitions that go beyond just Sabarimala. The scope has expanded to include the entry of women into mosques, the practice of female genital mutilation in the Dawoodi Bohra community, and the rights of Parsi women married outside their faith.

Legal experts suggest that the court’s latest comments on "Paisa Interest Litigation" signal a stricter approach toward entertaining PILs in the future. The bench indicated that while the doors of the court are open to the marginalized, they should not be used as a platform for political or financial maneuvering.

Impact on future filings

The proceedings on Tuesday have sent a clear message to the legal fraternity. Local authorities and legal observers in the capital believe this could lead to a tightening of the rules governing PIL admissions.

The hearing is expected to continue through the week, with the bench likely to further define the boundaries of judicial overreach in matters of faith. For now, the "paisa interest" remark stands as a stern warning against the commercialization of the judicial process.

Sabarimala case hearing Day 7: SC backs state reform powers

In the Sabarimala case hearing Day 7, the Supreme Court underscored the state’s authority to address social evils while examining religious freedom and women’s entry issues.

Hearing enters Day 7

New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday continued the seventh day of hearings in the Sabarimala case, with a nine-judge Constitution bench deliberating key constitutional questions on religious freedom and social reform.

Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium resumed arguments, focusing on the scope of Articles 25 and 26 and the balance between individual rights and denominational autonomy.

Court on state role

During the proceedings, the Chief Justice observed that the state represents the will of the people and holds the authority to intervene when society seeks to eliminate social evils.

The bench indicated that constitutional principles could allow such intervention, especially when practices appear to conflict with fundamental rights.

Debate on religious practice

A central issue remains whether temple customs constitute essential religious practices. Subramanium argued that courts must carefully assess such claims to ensure that superstition or external elements do not gain protection as religious rights.

He said any law interfering with religion must pass a strict scrutiny test and demonstrate a clear objective linked to social reform.

Key constitutional questions

The bench examined what qualifies as “social reform” and “social welfare” under the Constitution. Justice Bagchi raised concerns about the limits of legislative power in religious matters and whether general laws can directly interfere in such domains.

The court also discussed the meaning of “management” under Article 26, including whether internal debates within a religious sect fall within its scope.

Arguments by petitioners

Subramanium emphasised that freedom of religion under Article 25 includes belief, practice, and propagation. He noted that no two individuals practise religion identically, underscoring the personal nature of faith.

He further argued that while institutions function collectively, individual freedoms remain protected, and differing opinions within a sect are part of constitutional guarantees.

Background of dispute

The Sabarimala issue stems from a long-standing restriction on women aged 10–50 entering the Sabarimala Temple, dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, considered a “naishtika brahmachari”.

In 1991, the Kerala High Court upheld the restriction. However, in 2018, the Supreme Court of India struck it down, allowing entry to women of all ages. The verdict triggered widespread protests and multiple review petitions.

Temple authorities and some devotees continue to oppose the entry, citing religious tradition and the deity’s nature.

Earlier hearing highlights

In the previous hearings, the court questioned whether touching an idol could be considered defilement and whether constitutional protections should extend to devotees barred based on birth or lineage.

The Centre had earlier argued that courts should refrain from interfering in religious practices, pointing to similar restrictions in other temples.

What lies ahead

The nine-judge bench is currently addressing seven broader constitutional questions, including the extent of judicial review in matters of religion and the interpretation of essential religious practices.

A verdict is expected soon, which could have far-reaching implications for religious freedoms and gender equality across India. Legal observers say the ruling may redefine how courts approach conflicts between faith and fundamental rights.

As the Sabarimala case hearing Day 7 concludes, the focus remains on how the Constitution will reconcile individual rights with religious traditions in one of the country’s most closely watched public interest cases.

A controversy erupted at a Lenskart showroom in Raipur after members of a religious group allegedly entered the store and applied tilak on employees, asking them to visibly display their religious identity. The Raipur Lenskart showroom incident, captured on video, has since gone viral, drawing sharp reactions across platforms.

According to reports, the group raised slogans inside the showroom and questioned employees about their names before urging them to wear tilak while on duty.

What Happened Inside

Eyewitness accounts suggest that the activists moved around the store, interacting with staff and insisting that they should “sit with tilak” and inform customers about their religious identity. A woman seen in the video also claimed she was a customer of the brand but expressed anger over the company’s alleged policies. She reportedly stated that she would boycott the brand and even discard her eyewear purchased from the store.

Claims by Organisation

Members associated with a religious outfit said their protest was triggered by a viral document linked to the company’s employee grooming policy. The document allegedly restricted employees from wearing visible religious symbols such as tilak, kalava, or janeu.

They further alleged that while such restrictions applied to some, allowances were made for other religious attire, which they termed discriminatory. These claims remain unverified but have fueled the ongoing debate.

Viral Policy Document

The controversy gained traction earlier this week after a purported internal grooming policy document circulated on social media. The document suggested restrictions on certain religious markers as part of standard workplace appearance guidelines.

The issue quickly escalated into a trending topic, with calls for boycott emerging online. The Raipur Lenskart showroom incident added a visual and immediate dimension to the debate.

Company Responds

In response, the company issued a statement on social media, clarifying that the viral document was outdated and did not reflect its current policies. It stated that it respects all forms of religious and cultural expression.

The updated guidelines, according to the company, allow employees to wear symbols such as tilak, bindi, sindoor, kalava, mangalsutra, kada, hijab, and turban. The company also expressed regret if any sentiments were hurt and emphasised its commitment to inclusivity and equal respect.

Founder’s Clarification

The company’s founder also addressed the issue, stating that there is no restriction on religious expression within the organisation. He described the viral document as an old version that created confusion.

He assured that the brand’s policies are aligned with diversity and inclusivity, especially in a country like India where cultural identity plays a significant role in daily life.

Wider Public Debate

The Raipur Lenskart showroom controversy has sparked a broader discussion on workplace policies, religious freedom, and corporate guidelines in India. Experts note that grooming policies aim to maintain uniformity but must balance cultural sensitivities. The incident has also raised concerns about vigilantism and the manner in which grievances are expressed in public spaces.

What Lies Ahead

While the company has moved to clarify its stance, the issue continues to trend as a public interest story. Industry observers say brands may now revisit internal policies to ensure clarity and avoid misinterpretation.

Bageshwar Baba Dhirendra Shastri Attacks Lenskart Over ‘Tilak Ban’: ‘Move Company to Lahore’

‘Nakkata, Open Your Firm in Pakistan’

Heated Exchange in Prayagraj

Bageshwar Dham head Pandit Dhirendra Shastri launched a sharp attack on eyewear major Lenskart during a Hanuman Katha here, daring the company to shift its operations to Lahore if it cannot respect Hindu religious symbols. The fiery sermon on Tuesday drew massive applause from devotees.

‘Don’t Mess with Sanatan’

Shastri targeted the company’s alleged dress code policy that reportedly restricts employees from wearing tilak, sindoor, or mangalsutra. “Ek company hai Lenskart. Usne bola – no tilak, no mangalsutra, no sindoor,” he said. “Nakkata, tu apni company Lahore khol le. Bharat mein kyun mar raha hai?”

The priest warned that attacking the mangalsutra today would lead to attacks on the entire Sanatan Dharma tomorrow. “Aaj unhonne mangalsutra par ungli uthayi, kal woh tumhari Geeta-Ramayan par uthayenge,” he added.

What Sparked the Row

The controversy erupted after a purported policy document went viral on social media. It claimed Lenskart barred employees from wearing bindi, tilak, and kalava while allowing hijab and pagri under certain conditions. Activist Shefali Vaidya shared screenshots on X, questioning the discrepancy.

This quickly became a flashpoint. Hindu outfits accused the company of practising religious discrimination under the garb of workplace rules. The issue gained traction as a Public Interest Story, dominating national debates.

 Company’s Clarification Rejected

Amid growing backlash, Lenskart CEO Piyush Bansal issued a statement asserting that the company respects all faiths. He maintained employees have full freedom to wear religious symbols. However, the clarification has failed to pacify critics.

Protesting organisations have rejected the statement outright. They continue to demand a written apology and a rollback of the alleged policy. Agitations outside Lenskart showrooms have intensified.

 Protests Spread to Showrooms

In Bhopal’s New Market area, workers of the Hindu Utasav Samiti gheraoed a Lenskart outlet. Protesters applied tilak on employees and tied kalava while chanting mantras. “Sanatan ka apmaan nahi sahega Hindustan,” they declared.

Similar protests are now being planned in other cities. As per Latest News Today, more demonstrations are expected in the coming days across Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh.

 What Happens Next

Legal experts suggest the matter could reach the courts if the policy is proven discriminatory. Meanwhile, political reactions are pouring in. Some ruling party leaders have backed Shastri’s stance, calling for a national debate on workplace religious freedom.

For now, Lenskart finds itself at the centre of a storm. As an India News Update, this episode highlights rising tensions around religious expression in corporate India. The coming week will determine whether the company revisits its policy or faces sustained protests. According to officials familiar with the matter, no formal complaint has been filed yet, but pressure is mounting from multiple quarters.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday raised critical questions over religious restrictions at the Sabarimala temple, particularly the rationale behind barring women of a certain age group. During the ongoing hearing, the court asked how the mere act of touching a deity could render it impure, highlighting concerns over exclusion based on birth and gender.

A nine-judge Constitution bench is currently examining the broader legal and constitutional principles tied to the Sabarimala dispute, making it one of the most closely watched cases in recent India News Update cycles.

Bench Questions Traditions

The bench questioned whether constitutional morality should override practices that deny individuals the right to worship. It asked whether the Constitution should intervene when devotees are prevented from offering prayers solely due to their gender or biological factors.

The judges also sought clarity on how religious customs align with fundamental rights, particularly equality and non-discrimination.

Temple’s Legal Stand

Representing the Sabarimala temple, advocate V. Giri defended the restriction, stating that temple rituals are deeply rooted in the character of the presiding deity. He argued that Lord Ayyappa is considered a ‘Naishtika Brahmachari’ (eternal celibate), and therefore, the temple’s practices are designed to preserve that religious belief.

According to the counsel, any deviation from established customs would contradict the core tenets of the faith.

Background of Dispute

The Sabarimala issue has remained a significant public interest story for decades. In 1991, the Kerala High Court upheld a ban on women aged 10 to 50 entering the temple, citing tradition.

However, in a landmark 2018 judgment, the Supreme Court lifted the ban, allowing women of all age groups to enter. The ruling triggered widespread protests and multiple review petitions, leading to the current constitutional bench hearing.

Multiple Cases Clubbed

The court is not only examining the Sabarimala case but also hearing around 66 related matters concerning religious freedoms and practices across faiths. These include issues where entry restrictions exist in various temples and places of worship.

Sources indicated that the outcome may set a broader precedent for how courts interpret the balance between religious autonomy and fundamental rights.

Government’s Position

During earlier hearings that began on April 7, the Centre opposed unrestricted entry, arguing that similar gender-based restrictions exist in several religious institutions. It maintained that courts should respect long-standing traditions unless they clearly violate constitutional principles.

Officials suggested that religious diversity in India requires a nuanced approach rather than uniform judicial intervention.

What Lies Ahead

The Constitution bench is expected to deliver its verdict soon, possibly as early as Wednesday. The judgment is likely to have far-reaching implications on religious practices, gender rights, and constitutional interpretation.

Legal experts believe the ruling could redefine how courts handle faith-based customs in the future, making it a key development in national and international news discourse.

As the hearing concludes, the Supreme Court’s observations on the Sabarimala issue remain central to debates on equality, religious freedom, and evolving social norms in India.

Supreme Court questions Sabarimala women entry ban, examines religious practices and constitutional rights in a major India News Update.

Sabarimala row: SC asserts judicial review over religious practices

In the ongoing Sabarimala row, the Supreme Court and Centre differ on courts’ role in assessing religious practices and alleged discrimination

Hearing Continues in SC

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday continued hearing the long-standing Sabarimala row, focusing on whether courts can examine religious practices and label them as superstition. The proceedings, before a nine-judge Constitution bench, saw sharp exchanges between the Centre and the judiciary on the scope of judicial review.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that secular courts lack the expertise to determine what constitutes superstition in matters of faith. However, the bench maintained that constitutional courts retain the authority to examine such practices, especially where fundamental rights are involved.

Govt vs Court Stand

Presenting the Centre’s position, Mehta said religious practices vary widely across India’s diverse communities and should not be judged by courts using a uniform standard. He cautioned that labelling practices as superstition could lead to unintended consequences in a plural society.

The bench, however, pushed back. Justice Amanullah observed that courts have the power of judicial review and cannot be excluded entirely from examining religious practices. “The final determination cannot rest solely with the legislature,” the court noted during the exchange.

Debate on Discrimination

A key issue in the Sabarimala row remains alleged discrimination against women. The bench repeatedly underlined that constitutional guarantees of equality cannot be ignored.

Justice B. V. Nagarathna questioned whether denying entry to women on the basis of menstruation could be equated with untouchability, which is abolished under Article 17 of the Constitution.

The government countered that the Sabarimala tradition cannot be equated with caste-based untouchability and argued that not all religious restrictions violate fundamental rights.

Essential Religious Practice

The hearing also revisited the doctrine of “Essential Religious Practice” (ERP), which determines whether a practice qualifies for constitutional protection.

Mehta argued that courts should refrain from deciding what is essential to a religion, as this would require interpreting scriptures and beliefs—tasks beyond judicial competence.

The bench acknowledged the complexity but indicated that courts may still examine practices if they conflict with public order, morality, or health.

Background of Case

The Sabarimala row dates back decades, centred on the Sabarimala Temple in Kerala, where women aged 10 to 50 were traditionally barred from entry.

In 2018, the Supreme Court of India, in a 4:1 majority verdict, allowed entry of women of all ages, calling the ban unconstitutional. The ruling triggered widespread protests across Kerala.

Subsequently, over 50 review petitions were filed, leading to the current hearings before a larger bench examining broader constitutional questions.

Wider Constitutional Questions

The present proceedings extend beyond Sabarimala and include issues such as women’s entry into mosques, Parsi fire temples, and practices in other religions.

The bench is examining how Articles 25 and 26—guaranteeing religious freedom—interact with Articles 14, 15, and 17, which ensure equality and prohibit discrimination.

Judges indicated that while religious autonomy is protected, it cannot override constitutional morality in cases of clear discrimination.

What Lies Ahead

The hearings are scheduled to continue until April 22, with different sets of petitioners presenting arguments in phases. A final ruling is expected to clarify the balance between religious freedom and fundamental rights.

The outcome of the Sabarimala row is likely to have far-reaching implications for similar cases across India, shaping how courts interpret faith-based practices in the context of constitutional values.

As the debate unfolds, the case remains a significant public interest story and a key India News Update, closely tracked across legal and policy circles.