'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.

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.