What Happened
- Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, heading the nine-judge Constitution Bench hearing the Sabarimala reference, remarked that the original Sabarimala PIL — filed in 2006 by the Indian Young Lawyers Association — would likely not have been entertained by the Supreme Court today.
- The CJI observed that over the two decades since 2006, the Court has become more cautious about PIL admissibility and now applies "strict parameters to identify substance and filter out petitions driven by hidden agendas."
- The remark was made in the context of arguments about the locus standi (legal standing) of the petitioners — a non-devotee organisation challenging religious customs of a specific sect.
- The nine-judge bench is examining whether the ban on women's entry to Sabarimala was an essential religious practice, what standard courts should apply in adjudicating religious freedom claims, and whether the K.S. Puttaswamy right to privacy judgment affects the scope of PIL standing.
- The observation signals a broader judicial re-evaluation of the expansive PIL jurisdiction India's courts exercised from the 1980s onwards.
Static Topic Bridges
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) — The Privacy Judgment
On August 24, 2017, a nine-judge Constitution Bench unanimously held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right protected under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. The judgment overruled two earlier decisions — M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954) and Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. (1963) — which had held that privacy was not a constitutional right. The Puttaswamy judgment recognised privacy as intrinsic to personal liberty, dignity, and autonomy. It set a three-pronged test for any State encroachment on privacy: (i) legality (existence of law); (ii) legitimate aim; (iii) proportionality.
- The nine-judge bench was led by CJI J.S. Khehar and included Justices Chelameswar, Bobde, Agrawal, Nariman, Sapre, D.Y. Chandrachud, S.K. Kaul, and Nazeer.
- The judgment was triggered by challenges to Aadhaar's biometric data collection.
- Privacy rights protect individual choices in matters of religion, food, relationships, and personal identity — but do not automatically override the rights of religious denominations under Article 26.
- Privacy as a fundamental right influences PIL standing: a PIL challenging a religious practice on behalf of non-devotees raises questions about whether the petitioners' own privacy/dignity rights are at stake.
Connection to this news: The CJI's observation connects Puttaswamy to PIL admissibility: after Puttaswamy, courts are more attentive to whether petitioners have a genuine rights-based stake (privacy, dignity, equality) before entertaining PILs challenging others' religious customs.
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) — Evolution and Current Standards
Public Interest Litigation in India originated in the early 1980s through Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer and Justice P.N. Bhagwati's creative expansion of locus standi under Article 32 (right to move the Supreme Court for fundamental rights enforcement). The traditional rule — that only the person whose rights are violated can file a petition — was relaxed to allow any citizen or organisation to approach the court on behalf of those unable to access justice (prisoners, bonded labourers, the destitute). Over time, however, PILs expanded to include policy challenges, religious practices, environmental issues, and governance questions — raising concerns about judicial overreach.
- PIL can be filed before the Supreme Court under Article 32 or High Courts under Article 226.
- The court may treat even a letter or postcard as a PIL (epistolary jurisdiction).
- The Supreme Court in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) broadly relaxed locus standi requirements for PILs.
- Current concerns: frivolous PILs, PILs driven by political motives, judicial encroachment on the executive domain ("PIL as litigation weapon").
- The Court has moved toward stricter scrutiny: PILs that challenge religious practices of a denomination without a demonstrable personal rights stake raise locus standi concerns.
Connection to this news: The CJI's observation reflects the evolution from the 1980s expansive PIL era to a more rigorous 2020s standard — asking whether the petitioner in the Sabarimala case (a non-devotee lawyers' association) had a genuine constitutional stake or was driven by a different agenda.
The Sabarimala Case and Its Complex Legacy
The Sabarimala temple in Kerala is dedicated to Lord Ayyappa and traditionally barred women of menstruating age (10–50 years) from entry. In Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018), a five-judge Constitution Bench — by a 4:1 majority — struck down the ban as unconstitutional. The majority held that: devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a separate religious denomination; the exclusion of women was not an essential religious practice; and the practice violated Articles 14, 15, 17, and 25. Justice Indu Malhotra (lone dissent) argued that courts should not determine whether religious practices are rational and should respect a denomination's right to manage its own affairs, regardless of whether those practices align with constitutional morality.
- The case involved Articles 14 (equality), 15 (non-discrimination), 17 (abolition of untouchability), 25 (religious freedom), and 26 (denominational rights).
- Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 backed the exclusion.
- The 2018 judgment was referred to a nine-judge bench in 2019 to examine broader questions: scope of ERP doctrine, conflict between morality and religious freedom, locus standi for non-devotees.
- The 2026 hearings before the nine-judge bench are addressing these foundational questions.
Connection to this news: The CJI's remark that a 2006 PIL challenging another community's religious custom would face greater scrutiny today suggests the court may ultimately re-examine whether non-devotees had standing to challenge Sabarimala's entry restriction at all — which could reshape the outcome of the reference.
Key Facts & Data
- Puttaswamy judgment: August 24, 2017; nine-judge bench; unanimous verdict.
- Right protected: Privacy as a fundamental right under Articles 14, 19, 21.
- Overruled: M.P. Sharma (1954); Kharak Singh (1963).
- Sabarimala original PIL: Filed 2006 by Indian Young Lawyers Association.
- Sabarimala 2018 judgment: 4:1 majority (Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justices Nariman, Chandrachud, Malhotra — dissent — and Khanwilkar).
- Referred to nine-judge bench: November 2019.
- Nine-judge bench hearing: April 2026; presided by CJI Surya Kant.
- Article 32: Right to move Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights (itself a fundamental right).
- Article 226: High Court jurisdiction for writs (broader than Article 32).
- Essential Religious Practices doctrine: Established in Shirur Mutt case (1954) — courts decide what is "essential" to a religion.