CJI: Original PIL on Sabarimala should have been thrown in dustbin

While CJI Surya Kant said the PIL ought to have been “thrown outright in the dustbin”, Justice M M Sundresh described the filing of the petition as “a clear abuse of the process of law”.

The bench made these remarks as they questioned Gupta, representing the IYLA, on the organisation’s locus standi as the PIL petitioner.

Gupta said there were several threats at that time to him and Ali though the latter hardly had anything to do with the matter. “So far as Naushad Ali was concerned, he was only a name-lender president. He did not know anything about Sabarimala… And he started getting threats from all over the world. Chief Justice Dipak Misra was shocked,” he said.

He said the affidavit filed with the petition was sworn by IYLA general secretary Advocate Bhakti Pasrija. “So these threats were there and CJI Dipak Misra was very annoyed, that you cannot stop the judicial process with these kinds of threats. He provided police protection to me, to the president also. I refused.”

Justice Sundresh said, “Naushad is very smart…If he had made an attempt to clean his own house, he would not have been available to file this PIL.”

Justice Nagarathna asked, “If he (Ali) had no interest in the matter, then why was it (PIL) entertained by this court?”

The CJI,  referring to a news report annexed to the PIL about the priest of the temple being allegedly found in a compromising position, said, “And we entertain a PIL based upon this kind of document? It should have been thrown outright in the dustbin.”

“How does this article give you a cause of action to rake up the issue ultimately which is adjudicated?” he asked Gupta.

Justice Nagarathna said, “Every day, the CJI receives hundreds of letters. Can all those be converted into PILs?… Public Interest Litigation has now become Private Interest Litigation, Publicity Interest Litigation, Paisa Interest Litigation and Political Interest Litigation, all are called PILs. We entertain only real and genuine PILs.”

She also sought to know how the organisation was concerned with a question of freedom of conscience. “How does a juristic body have any beliefs? … How are you concerned with all this?… We want to know why you filed this PIL at all? What was it that you wanted to achieve? What good has come out of it?” she said.

“Are you the chief priest of the country,” the CJI asked Gupta.

Meanwhile, the bench also questioned the practice of barring a Parsi woman from a fire temple if she marries outside the religion, wondering how freedom of conscience, which accrues upon birth, can be taken away by marriage.

“The right to conscience under Article 25(1) is a right by birth, and it can’t be taken away by marriage… In this case, marriage as a basis for classification is discriminatory against women,” Justice Nagarathna asked Senior Advocate Darius J Khambata, appearing for Goolrokh Gupta, in related petitions concerning a Parsi woman’s religious identity.

Justice Sundresh said, “This practice presupposes once there is inter-marriage, faith is given up.” Justice Nagarathna said, “It’s virtually excommunication.”