11
Supreme Court Questions Locus of Indian Young Lawyers Association in Sabarimala Case
May 5, 2026 : The Supreme Court on Tuesday sharply questioned the locus standi of the Indian Young Lawyers Association in filing the 2006 Public Interest Litigation challenging the exclusion of women from the Sabarimala Temple, with members of the nine-Judge Bench making strong remarks against the petitioner association during the ongoing hearing in the Sabarimala reference matter.
During the proceedings, Justice M.M. Sundresh remarked that the Association’s President, Advocate Naushad Ahmed Khan, should have “put his own house in order first” before challenging the customs followed at the temple. The observation came after counsel appearing for the Association submitted that Khan was merely a “namesake” president who had little knowledge about the Sabarimala issue and had allegedly faced threats after the PIL was filed.
Justice B.V. Nagarathna also questioned the very basis on which the petition was entertained, observing that Khan appeared to have “no interest in the matter.” The Bench repeatedly asked whether the Association had passed any formal resolution authorising the filing of the PIL and whether its President had signed such a resolution. Counsel for the Association admitted that, to his knowledge, no such resolution had been passed.
Chief Justice of India cautioned the counsel against attributing observations to individual judges while referring to past proceedings before former Chief Justice Dipak Misra. The Bench stressed that the issue before it was whether the Association possessed the necessary standing to maintain the PIL in the first place.
Justice Nagarathna further criticised the Association for engaging in litigation of this nature instead of focusing on welfare measures for young lawyers and members of the Bar, particularly those from rural areas struggling to establish legal practice in cities.
The hearing also saw the Court question submissions made by the petitioner regarding religious beliefs associated with Lord Ayyappa. At one point, the Bench cautioned counsel against making irrelevant arguments and reminded him to remain focused on the legal questions referred to the larger Bench.
The Court additionally noted that the original PIL appeared to have been triggered by media reports and articles concerning the temple and its administration, raising doubts about whether such material alone could justify entertaining a PIL of this magnitude.
The matter is being heard in the reference arising out of the Sabarimala review proceedings concerning the interplay between freedom of religion, essential religious practices, and judicial review.