BackLAW
Sabarimala PIL papers should have been ‘thrown in dustbin’: Supreme Court
On May 5, 2026, the Supreme Court’s nine-judge bench criticized the foundations of the 2006 PIL that led to the 2018 Sabarimala ruling, calling the accompanying material unworthy of consideration. The proceedings also revisited earlier PIL filings, court orders, and the evolution of the case through 2018 and 2019, with broader questions on religious freedom and judicial intervention.
Why It Matters
The remarks question the integrity and use of PILs in religious freedom cases and have potential implications for future judgments on access, entry rights, and the balance between equality and religious practices across faiths.
Timeline
5 Events
May 5, 2026: Nine-judge bench hearing and remarks on PIL
May 5, 2026
The Supreme Court, on May 5, 2026, a Tuesday, heard a batch of matters arising from Sabarimala review proceedings and questioned the basis of the 2006 PIL. The bench criticized reliance on newspaper reports and unverified material, questioned petitioners' locus and intent, and remarked on the misuse of public interest litigation as a tool for private or publicity-driven interests. The Chief Justice and other judges also questioned whether those without faith in a deity could assert a right of entry and asked pointed questions about who could represent religious interests in such petitions. Proceedings were ongoing.
2019 review pleas and reference of broader questions to larger bench
2019
While considering those review petitions in 2019, the court referred a set of broader constitutional questions to a larger bench without conclusively deciding the correctness of the 2018 judgment, addressing issues related to equality, religious freedom, the scope of essential religious practices, and judicial intervention in faith matters.
2018 judgment struck down exclusion of women at Sabarimala
2018
A five-judge bench in Indian Young Lawyers Association vs State of Kerala held by a 4:1 majority that the practice barring women aged 10 to 50 from entering the temple was unconstitutional.
2016 court order on security of association officers
2016
The Supreme Court issued a 2016 order ensuring the security of the association’s office-bearers, including its president Noushad Ali, and stated that the court would proceed with the matter even if the association wished to withdraw its plea.
2006 PIL filed challenging exclusion of women at Sabarimala
2006
The Indian Young Lawyers’ Association (IALA) filed a public interest litigation in 2006 challenging the exclusion of women of menstruating age from entering Sabarimala temple, setting in motion the legal action that would later contribute to the 2018 judgment.