NEW DELHI: A nine-judge Supreme Court bench led by CJI Surya Kant on Tuesday said the SC in 2006 should have outrightly “thrown in the dustbin’ the original PIL that led to quashing of Sabarimala Ayyappa Temple custom restricting entry of women in the 10 to 50 age group. “All India Young Lawyers Association’, which filed the PIL in 2006 through its president Naushad Ali, narrated through senior advocate RP Gupta how a misconduct by the thantri of Ayyappa temple led to filing of the petition challenging the restriction. The bench led by CJI Kant said SC at best could have ordered investigations into the misconduct to bring the guilty to the book. But based on newspaper reports, the PIL could not have been entertained, it said.The bench said, “SC had entertained the PIL based on ‘such documents’, which should have been thrown in the dustbin. Locus standi was generated based on newspaper reports. SC should have ensured that action against the offender is expedited and nothing more.” The nine-judge bench consists of CJI Kant, Justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine G Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi. Justice Kumar asked whether the lawyers’ body had passed a resolution for filing the PIL and whether it was a registered body. Gupta said there was no resolution and that though Naushad Ali was only a name-lender, threats were given to him as well as to his counsel. “Then CJI Dipak Misra, who was the architect of the controversial judgment, had offered security for the petitioner and its counsel. Then CJI Misra had said that even if the petitioner wanted to withdraw the PIL, the court would not allow it,” Gupta informed. CJI Kant observed, “So it was de facto a suo motu petition (taken up on its own by the court) de jure filed by the petitioner organisation?” The suggestion that the matter had been, in effect, engineered by the bench led by then CJI Misra found some confirmation in Justice Nagarathna’s remark: “This is a realistic assessment of the CJI (Kant).”Justice Nagarathna said, “The former CJI offered security to you and the petitioner organisation president. He could have ensured no security threat to you by not entertaining the petition. Why would a non-believer in Ayyappa question the temple customs carried on for decades based on faith and belief of devotees?” “Are you the chief priest of the country to question temple customs and say how can there be such a custom in Ayyappa temple at Sabarimala,” she said. Justice Sundresh said it appears to be a clear case of abuse of process of law. Justice Nagarathna said SC now entertains genuine PILs and is strongly against the private-publicity-paisapolitical interest litigationsFollow the latest election results 2026, live updates, winner lists, constituency-wise results, party-wise trends and full coverage for Tamil Nadu election results, West Bengal election results, Kerala election results, Assam election results and Puducherry election results results on Times of India.End of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideosDMK Hits Out As Congress Directs TNCC To Take Final Call On Vijay’s Support Request’Historic, Decisive’: Trump Congratulates PM Modi Over BJP’s Win In Bengal ElectionsDefeat but ‘Moral Win’? Mamata Targets EC, Hints At BIGGER Opposition AlliancePower Bank Catches Fire On IndiGo Hyderabad-Chandigarh Flight, All Passengers And Crew EvacuatedIndia Seeks To Lease Three Ultra Heavy Lift Helicopters To Boost CapabilityAIMIM Chief Owaisi Says Muslim Votes Wasted on Secular Parties, Calls for ShiftKejriwal Alleges BJP “Robbed” Punjab of Rajya Sabha Seats, Vows Political Revenge“Democracy Being Mocked”: Bhagwant Mann Meets President Over Defection of 7 AAP Rajya Sabha MPsNCERT Clears Revised Class 8 Textbook After Judiciary Chapter Row And Public ApologyPM Modi call Fujairah Attack ‘Unacceptable’, Three Indians Injured In UAE123PhotostoriesWatermelon vs. mango: Which is better for summer nutrition and the right way to consume5 unique national parks in South America where waterfalls, wildlife and wilderness come aliveHow to make Chef Ranveer Brar-Style Lucknowi Dal Falaknuma at homeOlder than dinosaurs? 5 prehistoric-era animals that still walk the Earth todayKaran Johar to Ananya Birla:Indian stars who stole the show at Met Gala 2026From ‘The Dark Knight’ to ‘Brokeback Mountain’: Heath Ledger’s top films to stream on OTT right nowA fresh, green home without the effort: Plants that thrive even when you forget8 ‘weird’ dog behaviours explained: What your pet is really trying to tell youSubtle signs you’re outgrowing a friendship– And how to deal with itBroccoli vs Cauliflower: One has more nutrients, the other fewer calories, which should you really be eating?123Hot PicksBarrackpore election resultTiruchirappalli election resultMettupalayam election resultsEttumanoor election resultPerambur election resultBagnan election resultKazhakkoottam election resultTop TrendingNFL Trade RumorsRahul GandhiBadruddin AjmalIPL Playoff Qualification ScenariosIPL 2026 Points TableMI IPL Playoff Qualification ScenariosJalandhar BlastNEET 2026: Exam-day guideSRMJEEE 2026 Phase 1 ResultTVK Chief Vijay
NEW DELHI: A nine-judge Supreme Court bench led by CJI Surya Kant on Tuesday said the SC in 2006 should have outrightly “thrown in the dustbin’ the original PIL that led to quashing of Sabarimala Ayyappa Temple custom restricting entry of women in the 10 to 50 age group. “All India Young Lawyers Association’, which filed the PIL in 2006 through its president Naushad Ali, narrated through senior advocate RP Gupta how a misconduct by the thantri of Ayyappa temple led to filing of the petition challenging the restriction. The bench led by CJI Kant said SC at best could have ordered investigations into the misconduct to bring the guilty to the book. But based on newspaper reports, the PIL could not have been entertained, it said.The bench said, “SC had entertained the PIL based on ‘such documents’, which should have been thrown in the dustbin. Locus standi was generated based on newspaper reports. SC should have ensured that action against the offender is expedited and nothing more.” The nine-judge bench consists of CJI Kant, Justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine G Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi. Justice Kumar asked whether the lawyers’ body had passed a resolution for filing the PIL and whether it was a registered body. Gupta said there was no resolution and that though Naushad Ali was only a name-lender, threats were given to him as well as to his counsel. “Then CJI Dipak Misra, who was the architect of the controversial judgment, had offered security for the petitioner and its counsel. Then CJI Misra had said that even if the petitioner wanted to withdraw the PIL, the court would not allow it,” Gupta informed. CJI Kant observed, “So it was de facto a suo motu petition (taken up on its own by the court) de jure filed by the petitioner organisation?” The suggestion that the matter had been, in effect, engineered by the bench led by then CJI Misra found some confirmation in Justice Nagarathna’s remark: “This is a realistic assessment of the CJI (Kant).”Justice Nagarathna said, “The former CJI offered security to you and the petitioner organisation president. He could have ensured no security threat to you by not entertaining the petition. Why would a non-believer in Ayyappa question the temple customs carried on for decades based on faith and belief of devotees?” “Are you the chief priest of the country to question temple customs and say how can there be such a custom in Ayyappa temple at Sabarimala,” she said. Justice Sundresh said it appears to be a clear case of abuse of process of law. Justice Nagarathna said SC now entertains genuine PILs and is strongly against the private-publicity-paisapolitical interest litigations
