Supreme Court rebukes Indian Young Lawyers Association over Sabarimala PIL

On May 5‑7 2026, a nine‑judge Constitution bench of the Indian Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and including Justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi, continued hearings on the Sabarimala reference case. The bench scrutinised a 2006 public‑interest litigation (PIL) filed by the India Young Lawyers Association (IYLA) that challenged the ban on women aged 10‑50 entering the Sabarimala Temple in Kerala.

The justices questioned the association’s standing, motive and the basis of the petition, noting that the PIL was founded solely on four newspaper reports. They described the filing as an “abuse of process of law” and asked the IYLA counsel, “Are you the chief priest of the country?” and “Why file this PIL?” Judges also probed whether the body had any genuine religious belief or direct stake in the matter, urging it to focus on the welfare of younger lawyers instead.

The hearings, part of a broader reference to review the 2018 verdict that had lifted the ban, also touched on constitutional questions about the scope of religious freedom, public order, morality and the balance between individual rights and denominational autonomy.