Supreme Court Voices Concern Over Rampant Misuse of Public Interest Litigation
The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday delivered a sharp critique of the widespread misuse of Public Interest Litigation for ulterior motives or personal agendas. During a hearing concerning the Sabarimala temple custom that bars entry of women of menstruating age, the apex court indicated it would have dismissed the PIL petition if it had been filed by the lawyers' body currently challenging the practice.
Bench Questions PIL Legitimacy in Religious Matters
This significant observation emerged from a nine-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, A G Masih, P B Varale, R Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi. The bench expressed frustration with PILs being filed by parties with no direct connection to the issues at hand.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the Sabarimala custom had not been challenged by a Lord Ayyappa devotee. He contended that the Supreme Court had previously struck down the practice as unconstitutional based on a misreading and misapplication of the 'constitutional morality' test to what he described as the judicially inscrutable concepts of faith, belief, and religious custom.
Judicial Intervention in Religious Matters Under Scrutiny
Justice Nagarathna concurred with this perspective, noting that even if the lawyers' body had filed a civil suit instead of a PIL, it would have been dismissed for lack of cause of action. Chief Justice Kant agreed but added an important caveat, pointing out that the PIL had been entertained two decades earlier in 2006, and there exists a judgment from the court.
"We are tasked to determine the scope and ambit of judicial intervention in religious matters," the Chief Justice emphasized, highlighting the complex balancing act between religious freedom and constitutional principles.
Broader Concerns About Constitutional Morality Application
The hearing expanded to address broader concerns about how constitutional morality has been applied in recent judgments. Solicitor General Mehta flagged what he described as the corrupting influence of western mindset on the judgment in the Joseph Shine case, which decriminalized adultery on grounds that the archaic provision violated women's dignity, liberty, and equality by shackling sexual freedom and burdening women with fidelity.
Mehta clarified that while he had no objection to the outcome of the Joseph Shine case, he believed the provision could have been struck down on grounds of discrimination rather than through the application of constitutional morality to societal norms. He argued that fidelity applies equally to men and women in marriage, and that provisions curbing extra-marital affairs should not be characterized as shackling sexual freedom.
"What is more worrisome is that societal norms have been termed as 'mob morality' and inexplicably the court had used constitutional morality to strike down the provision," Mehta stated, expressing concern about judicial overreach into cultural and social norms.
Evolution of Public Morality and Judicial Standards
Justice Nagarathna offered a nuanced perspective on the evolution of morality, noting that "What was considered immoral and obscene in the 1950s is no longer considered so. That is now considered narrow-minded and old-fashioned. That is the problem of India today. But public morality is not static."
This acknowledgment of changing societal standards highlighted the complex challenge courts face when adjudicating matters that intersect with cultural norms, religious practices, and constitutional principles.
Revisiting PIL Framework and Locus Standi Requirements
The hearing delved deeply into the fundamental question of whether a person not belonging to a religious denomination or religious group can question that group's practices through a PIL. Solicitor General Mehta provided historical context, explaining that PIL was devised by the Supreme Court in 1984 in the Bandhua Mukti Morcha case as a tool to champion the grievances of marginalized sections who lacked access to courts for protection of their fundamental rights.
Initially, the court adopted a lenient approach in testing the locus standi of those filing PILs. However, Mehta argued that this mechanism has now become a tool for anyone unconnected with an issue to file PILs, effectively abusing the originally strict locus standi provisions.
"With the sea change in access to justice, the courts must insist on strict locus standi rule to prevent abuse of PILs, especially in matters relating to religion, customs, faith and beliefs," Mehta urged the bench.
Judicial Response to PIL Framework Concerns
The Centre argued strongly that locus should not be liberally defined in such matters, and the court appeared receptive to this position. Chief Justice Kant noted that "In the last few years, the courts have started enforcing strict locus standi rule to PILs. The constitutional courts are very circumspect in entertaining PILs as people come with ulterior motives or to advance their agendas."
This judicial acknowledgment of the need for greater scrutiny of PIL petitions represents a significant shift in how the court approaches public interest litigation, particularly in sensitive areas involving religion and cultural practices.
The arguments in this landmark case will continue on Thursday, with the Supreme Court poised to potentially redefine the boundaries of judicial intervention in religious matters and establish clearer guidelines for PIL eligibility in such cases.
