Current Affairs Topics Quiz Archive
International Relations Economics Polity & Governance Environment & Ecology Science & Technology Internal Security Geography Social Issues Art & Culture Modern History

Sabarimala case: Can non-devotees challenge temple customs? SC asks Centre

April 08, 2026 6 min read Polity & Governance GS2 (Indian Constitution Judiciary)
On This Page ▼

What Happened

  • The nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court hearing the Sabarimala reference questioned whether non-devotees of Lord Ayyappa have the legal standing (locus standi) to challenge the temple's customs through a Public Interest Litigation (PIL).
  • Justice B.V. Nagarathna pointed out that the original challenge was brought not by devotees of the Sabarimala temple but by the Indian Young Lawyers Association — an organisation with no direct religious connection to the faith or practices of Lord Ayyappa.
  • Chief Justice Surya Kant countered that the 2018 Sabarimala judgment held that courts can intervene when a "grave constitutional issue" is raised, regardless of the petitioner's direct connection, and that the locus question should have been settled in 2006 when the writ petition was originally filed.
  • The bench is examining one of its seven referred constitutional questions: whether a person not belonging to a religious denomination can challenge a practice of that denomination by filing a PIL.
  • The PIL maintainability question has wider implications — if the court narrows PIL standing in religious matters, it could effectively insulate many religious practices from constitutional challenge.

Static Topic Bridges

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) — Doctrine, Origins, and Scope

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a mechanism that allows courts to be accessed by any person, on behalf of the public, to enforce constitutional or legal rights of persons who are unable to access the court themselves. It was developed by the Supreme Court of India as part of judicial activism beginning in the late 1970s and 1980s.

  • PIL origin in India: traced to S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) — Justice P.N. Bhagwati held that any member of the public with a sufficient interest could file a writ petition if justice demanded it; locus standi rules were relaxed.
  • Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979): an early PIL landmark; a letter written to the court about undertrial prisoners was converted into a writ petition.
  • PIL can be filed under: Article 32 (directly in the Supreme Court for violation of Fundamental Rights) or Article 226 (in High Courts for violation of Fundamental Rights or any other legal right).
  • PIL can be initiated by: any public-spirited person, NGO, journalist, or even the court suo motu (on its own motion).
  • PIL limitations: courts have over time imposed restrictions to prevent PIL from being misused for private grievances, political purposes, or publicity; courts have the power to dismiss frivolous PILs with costs.

Connection to this news: The Sabarimala PIL was filed by the Indian Young Lawyers Association — a third-party without direct connection to the faith. The bench is now examining whether this third-party standing under the PIL doctrine is appropriate in cases involving religious denomination practices.

Locus Standi — Traditional Rule and PIL Exception

Locus standi (Latin: "place to stand") refers to the legal right of a party to bring an action before a court or to be heard. Under traditional common law principles, only a person who has suffered a direct legal injury has locus standi.

  • Traditional rule: Only an aggrieved person can approach the court for redress of grievances.
  • PIL exception: The Supreme Court relaxed this rule through a series of judgments in the 1980s, holding that in cases of public interest, any member of the public acting bona fide may approach the court.
  • Articles 32 and 226: These provisions allow a person to approach the court for violation of Fundamental Rights; the traditional interpretation required the petitioner to be the victim of the alleged violation.
  • Distinction being drawn in Sabarimala: Is the restriction on women's entry a violation of the women's Fundamental Rights (where affected women would have direct locus standi) — or is it a challenge to a religious denomination's internal practice (where third parties may not have locus standi)?
  • Justice B.V. Nagarathna's observation: the Indian Young Lawyers Association is "not devotees," raising the question of whether a non-religious group has sufficient interest to challenge a religious denomination's practices.

Connection to this news: The maintainability question cuts to the heart of PIL jurisprudence in the religious domain — narrowing locus standi here could effectively mean that only affected believers (women who are devotees of Lord Ayyappa) could challenge the practice, significantly raising the bar for constitutional challenges to religious customs.

Religious Denominations Under Articles 25-26 — The "Denomination" Test

For a group to claim the protections of Article 26 (including the right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion), it must qualify as a "religious denomination." The Supreme Court has developed a three-part test for denomination status.

  • Three-part denomination test (Shirur Mutt case, 1954): A religious denomination must have (1) a common faith; (2) a common organisation; and (3) a distinctive name by which it is known.
  • Examples: The Swaminarayan Sampraday, Ananda Marg, and Ramakrishna Mission have been recognised as religious denominations or sections thereof; specific sects within Hinduism, Christianity, and Islam have also been recognised.
  • Ayyappa devotees: the question before the bench is whether the devotees of Lord Ayyappa constitute a separate "religious denomination" distinct from broader Hinduism — if yes, they have Article 26 protections for their denomination's practices.
  • The original 2018 Sabarimala majority (4:1) held that Ayyappa devotees do NOT constitute a separate religious denomination, and therefore Article 26 protections do not apply.
  • The lone dissent in 2018 (Justice Indu Malhotra): held that Ayyappa devotees DO constitute a distinct denomination and their practices deserve Article 26 protection.

Connection to this news: The PIL maintainability question is connected to the denomination question — if Ayyappa devotees are a separate denomination, then only their members (who follow the custom) may be able to define and defend their practices, potentially excluding outside challengers from having locus standi.

Judicial Review of Private Religious Practices — Scope and Limits

A fundamental question in Indian constitutional law is whether Fundamental Rights operate only against the State (vertical application) or also against private entities including religious groups (horizontal application). The answer determines whether a PIL challenging a private temple's customs is maintainable at all.

  • Article 12 defines "State" for Part III purposes: includes the Central Government, State Governments, Parliament, State Legislatures, local authorities, and "other authorities" within or under the control of the Government.
  • "Other authorities" test: Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib (1981) — the court developed a test for what counts as a State instrumentality (whether government controls or funds the body).
  • Travancore Devaswom Board: administers Sabarimala; established under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 (a State law); receives government grants and is under State supervision — making it a State actor or at least quasi-State, enabling the constitutional challenge.
  • If Sabarimala were managed by a purely private trust (no government involvement), the direct constitutional challenge under Article 32 might be less sustainable.
  • Contrast with private trusts: practices of fully private denominational institutions generally cannot be challenged directly under Part III — they must be challenged through ordinary law.

Connection to this news: The CJI's observation that locus standi should have been settled in 2006 suggests that the court sees the Travancore Devaswom Board's quasi-State character as conferring a sufficient constitutional nexus, making the PIL maintainable regardless of the petitioners' religious identity — but the nine-judge bench may revisit this question.

Key Facts & Data

  • Nine-judge Constitution Bench: Chief Justice Surya Kant + Justices B.V. Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan, Joymalya Bagchi
  • Original PIL petitioner: Indian Young Lawyers Association (writ petition filed 2006)
  • Original Sabarimala judgment: Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018) — 4:1 majority
  • PIL origin: S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981); locus standi relaxed
  • Three-part denomination test: common faith + common organisation + distinctive name (Shirur Mutt, 1954)
  • 2018 majority: Ayyappa devotees NOT a separate denomination (Article 26 inapplicable)
  • 2018 dissent (Justice Indu Malhotra): Ayyappa devotees ARE a denomination; practices protected
  • Travancore Devaswom Board: statutory body under Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950
  • Seven constitutional questions referred to nine-judge bench (including denomination, ERP doctrine, PIL locus, and scope of constitutional morality)
  • Article 32 (SC) and Article 226 (HC): the constitutional provisions enabling PIL filings