Overview
- The bench, during Tuesday’s hearing, called the 2006 petition that led to the 2018 Sabarimala ruling an abuse of process and said it should have been “thrown in the dustbin.”
- Judges pressed the Indian Young Lawyers’ Association on standing and motive, asking how a juristic body can claim a right to worship and highlighting the lack of a formal resolution and a “name-lender” president.
- The court warned that PILs are often misused and said petitions built on newspaper clippings do not supply a valid cause of action, with one judge describing today’s trend as private, publicity, paisa, or political interest litigation.
- The reference considers seven constitutional questions, including how Article 25’s individual religious freedom interacts with Article 26’s denominational rights and whether outsiders may challenge long-standing temple or community customs.
- In related submissions, justices said excluding Parsi women from their faith community after an interfaith marriage appears discriminatory because freedom of conscience is by birth, and the bench continues hearings that could guide access rules across faiths.