“Was Duty Bound To Sign”: Original Sabarimala Women Entry Case Petitioner Says He Wanted To Withdraw PIL Later
Nearly two decades after the original petition challenging the Sabarimala temple entry restrictions was filed, Advocate Naushad Ahmed Khan on Tuesday told the Supreme Court that he had merely signed the plea in his capacity as President of the Indian Young Lawyers Association because women members of the association were “aggrieved” by the ban on the entry of women aged 10–50 years into the temple.
Khan’s appearance before the nine-judge Constitution Bench has assumed significance after the Supreme Court, during recent hearings, repeatedly questioned the very basis on which the lawyers’ body initiated the public interest litigation in 2006. The Court has even described the filing as a potential “abuse of process of law.”
Appearing before the Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, Khan defended his role in filing the petition.
“At the beginning there were many questions on me... our Association came into being in 2004, we were quite young... we have a women’s cell in our association... The co-petitioners are Bhakti and Prerna, they filed this... I was duty bound to sign this petition as they were aggrieved,” Khan told the Court.
He further stated that the association and its members began receiving threats shortly after the matter was first heard. “At that time after half an hour of the hearing we received threats,” he said.
Addressing questions over his locus standi, Khan informed the Bench that he had later sought to reconsider the litigation and even attempted to withdraw from the case. However, he said the then Chief Justice of India refused to permit withdrawal because the matter had already been entertained as a PIL.
“We wanted to have a relook on this... but the CJI at that time said that it is a PIL and we will carry forward the petition and even if you want to withdraw it, we will not allow it,” Khan told the Court, adding that an amicus curiae had subsequently been appointed to assist in the matter.
The remarks recall proceedings from 2016, when a Bench of former Justices Dipak Misra and N. V. Ramana observed that once a public interest litigation is entertained, it cannot simply be withdrawn. At the time, Khan had sought an urgent hearing claiming he had received nearly 500 threatening phone calls and wished to withdraw the PIL. The Court later granted him security protection.
Supreme Court Questions Petitioners’ Motives
During hearings last week, the Constitution Bench strongly questioned the standing of the petitioner association in initiating the challenge.
Justice B. V. Nagarathna asked, “How does a juristic body have any beliefs? How can you have conscience?” The Court also remarked that the PIL “should have been thrown into the dustbin.”
When counsel for the association argued that the deity was believed to disapprove of the presence of young women, Justice Nagarathna responded sharply: “How are you concerned with all this... you please tell us.”
Chief Justice Surya Kant also questioned the association’s role, asking, “Are you the Chief Minister of the country?”
Justice Nagarathna further suggested that the association should instead focus on issues concerning the legal profession. “Can you not work for the welfare of the bar or work for the country... work for the welfare of younger members of the bar who are working in rural areas... rather than filing such PILs,” she remarked.
Justice Aravind Kumar also questioned whether the association had formally authorised the filing of the petition through a resolution.
Background of the Sabarimala Case
The controversy dates back to 2006, when the Indian Young Lawyers Association filed a writ petition challenging Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965, which restricted the entry of women between the ages of 10 and 50 into the Sabarimala Temple dedicated to Lord Ayyappa.
On September 28, 2018, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, by a 4:1 majority, ruled that the exclusion of women of menstruating age from the temple violated Articles 14, 15, 17 and 25 of the Constitution. The Court held that devotees of Lord Ayyappa did not constitute a separate religious denomination entitled to protection under Article 26.
The verdict triggered widespread protests and led to the filing of more than 50 review petitions by devotees, religious organisations and other groups, who argued that the judgment interfered with essential religious practices.
On November 14, 2019, another five-judge Constitution Bench, by a 3:2 majority, kept the review petitions pending and referred broader constitutional questions involving the intersection of religious freedom and gender equality to a larger nine-judge Bench.
The ongoing proceedings have since expanded beyond Sabarimala to include questions concerning Muslim women’s entry into mosques, the rights of Parsi women, and the practice of excommunication in the Dawoodi Bohra community, making the matter one of the most significant constitutional and religious freedom debates before the Supreme Court.