NATIONAL
Krishnadas Rajagopal
NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 08, 2018 21:07 IST
UPDATED: OCTOBER 09, 2018 07:33 IST
Justice Indu Malhotra had warned that permitting PIL pleas in religious matters would
throw open the oodgates to ‘interlopers’
Justice Indu Malhotra’s rationale that courts should not allow “interlopers” to file PIL pleas
challenging religious practices is a common thread in the review petitions filed in the
Supreme Court on Monday against the Sabarimala judgment.
Justice Malhotra, in her dissent against allowing women aged between 10 and 50 entry into
the temple, warned that “permitting PILs in religious matters would open the floodgates to
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/sabarimala-review-pleas-take-dissenting-judges-line/article25159575.ece 1/4
10/10/2018 Sabarimala review pleas take dissenting judge’s line - The Hindu
interlopers to question religious beliefs and practices, even if the petitioner is not a believer of
a particular religion, or a worshipper of a particular shrine”.
The right to move the Supreme Court under Article 32 for violation of Fundamental Rights,
must be based on a pleading that the petitioners’ personal rights to worship have been
violated. Entertaining of PIL pleas on religious practices by third parties may invite “perils
even graver for religious minorities”.
Petitioners’ claim
The petitioners did not claim to be devotees of the Sabarimala temple where Lord Ayyappa is
believed to have manifested himself as a Naishtika Brahmachari. The Indian Young Lawyers
Association only said it was involved in activities related to the “uplift of women and helping
them become aware of their rights”.
ALSO READ
Former Supreme Court judge Justice K.T. Thomas countered Justice
Malhotra’s reasoning. Justice Thomas was on the Bench which first heard
the Sabarimala case in the Kerala High Court.
Only believers
“Justice Indu Malhotra said faith is irrational. But whenever faith inflicts
could have harm on fundamental rights, the court should intervene. An aacharam
moved against
Sabarimala ban (tradition) should not become an anaacharam (bad tradition),” he said.
on women,
argues review Justice Thomas upheld the principle of constitutional morality, where
beliefs and usages should be in tune with the fundamental rights
enshrined in the Constitution.
“In matters of religion and religious practices, Article 14 can be invoked only by persons who
are similarly situated, that is, persons belonging to the same faith, creed or sect,” Justice
Malhotra observed.
The minority view emphasised the fundamental right under Article 25 of an individual to
worship a specific manifestation of the deity in accordance with the tenets of that faith or a
place of worship.
© The Hindu
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/sabarimala-review-pleas-take-dissenting-judges-line/article25159575.ece 3/4
10/10/2018 Sabarimala review pleas take dissenting judge’s line - The Hindu
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/sabarimala-review-pleas-take-dissenting-judges-line/article25159575.ece 4/4