- Hindi News
- National
- Sabarimala Reference Women Entry LIVE Update; Muslim Dawoodi Bohra Parsi Supreme Court | CJI Surya Kant
New Delhi25 minutes ago
- copy link
The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that public interest litigation has now become private interest and publicity interest, money interest litigation and political interest litigation. This comment was made by the Constitution Bench of nine judges during the hearing of petitions related to Sabarimala temple in Kerala.
The court questioned the purpose of the Indian Young Lawyers Association’s 2006 PIL, which challenged the ban on entry of women aged 10 to 50 years in Kerala’s Sabarimala temple.
The court said that PIL is an abuse of the process of law and the association should work for the welfare of the bar and its young members instead of filing such PIL.
Hearing is going on for the 11th day in the Supreme Court on the petitions related to discrimination against women in religious places and the scope of religious freedom in different religions.
In September 2018, a five-judge Constitution bench, in a 4:1 majority verdict, had lifted the ban on entry of women aged between 10 and 50 years into the Sabarimala Ayyappa temple. The court had then said that the centuries-old Hindu religious practice is illegal and unconstitutional.
Supreme Court’s comments on PIL
- The association’s counsel argued that the PIL was based on four newspaper articles published in June 2006. On this the CJI said – It should have been rejected outright. How does this article explain the reasons for filing a PIL? It is easy to get an article written for filing PIL.
- Public interest litigation has now become private interest litigation, publicity interest litigation, money interest litigation and political interest litigation. All are called PIL, but we hear only genuine PIL.
- The CJI receives hundreds of letters every day, questioning whether all of them can be converted into PILs.
Source link
[ad_3]
