The Supreme Court questioned the Kerala Law Academy, a lawyers’ body, regarding its intervention petition in the Sabarimala women’s entry case. The court asked why the academy, and specifically its chairperson, felt the need to intervene, particularly questioning what business they had in the matter if they weren’t directly affected.
The bench, comprising Justices S.A. Nazeer, A.S. Bopanna, and V. Ramasubramanian, was hearing arguments regarding a review of its 2018 judgment allowing women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala temple. The court specifically directed questions towards the academy’s counsel, suggesting the intervention appeared to be motivated by political considerations.
The core of the court’s questioning revolved around the lack of a direct, demonstrable injury to the Kerala Law Academy due to the 2018 judgment. The judges pressed for clarification on how the academy’s fundamental rights were violated or affected by the ruling. They pointedly asked if the academy was acting as a proxy for political entities.
The academy argued that the judgment impacted the religious faith of its members and the traditional practices of the temple. They claimed the judgment interfered with essential religious practices protected under the Constitution. However, the court remained skeptical, repeatedly asking for a concrete connection between the academy and the issue.
The court also noted the academy’s intervention came long after the original judgment and several subsequent proceedings. This timing further fueled the court’s suspicion about the motives behind the intervention.
The arguments highlighted a broader debate about the scope of intervention petitions and the requirement of demonstrating genuine grievance or affected rights for standing in court. The court’s stance suggests a stricter approach to accepting interventions in cases with significant public and political ramifications. The hearing concluded with the court reserving its order on the academy’s intervention. The outcome will determine whether the academy’s arguments will be considered in the ongoing review proceedings.
