What drama evolved in the Supreme Court when NGO led by one Naushad Ali challenged prohibition on women in Sabarimala temple?

On May 5, 2026, the Supreme Court of India not only interpreted the law but also strongly criticised those it believed were misusing the judicial process. On the eleventh day of hearings before the nine-judge Constitution Bench convened for the Sabarimala reference, the court turned its scrutiny toward the India Young Lawyers Association, the very NGO whose 2018 petition had set off nearly a decade of legal and social turbulence surrounding the temple controversy.


One of the most striking moments during the hearing came when counsel for the Indian Young Lawyers Association, presided by Naushad Ali, admitted that the original PIL challenging the centuries-old Sabarimala tradition was primarily based on four newspaper reports published in 2006. Responding sharply, Surya Kant remarked, “Okay, so it was based on press reports,” a brief but pointed observation that underscored the court’s concern over the foundation of the petition.

Here is what the exact conversation sounded like:

NGO lawyer Ravi Prakash Gupta: “They say the deity does not like the presence of young ladies… Is that said as an expression of regard towards the deity, or is it meant as an insult to the deity? Are they putting words in the mouth of Lord Ayyappa?”

Chief Justice Surya Kant: “Are you the chief priest of the country... What was your business?"

Justice BV Nagarathna: “How are you concerned with all this? Tell us? Is it in any way your business?”

Justice Aravind Kumar: Who is the president of your association? Is he a believer?"

Gupta: "Naushad Ali."

Justice BV Nagarathna: How can an entity that is not a “believer” develop a belief in a deity? “How can a juristic personality have a belief, a conscience?”

Justice MM Sundresh: The petition filed by the association was a “clear abuse of the process of law."

Justice BV Nagarathna: Articles are being published in newspapers merely for the sake of filing PILs.


Decoding the Court's say in the matter:

The disclosure drew attention to the fact that the plea against Lord Ayyappa’s traditional practice relied largely on media reports rather than detailed theological, constitutional, or doctrinal study of the Sabarimala tradition and the concept of Naishtika Brahmacharya.

The hearing turned sharper when M. M. Sundresh observed that the arguments amounted to “nothing but an abuse of the process of law” after counsel for the India Young Lawyers Association raised procedural objections over the constitution bench reference.


Notably, the crucial moment in the hearing came when Aravind Kumar asked the counsel for the India Young Lawyers Association to identify the organisation’s president, to which the response was Naushad Ali. B. V. Nagarathna then questioned the organisation’s standing to challenge a religious practice, asking how a legal body could claim “belief” in a matter concerning faith and devotional traditions. The bench also raised concerns over whether the organisation or its president could legitimately represent or challenge the beliefs of Lord Ayyappa devotees.

The court further examined the procedural legitimacy of the PIL after Justice Aravind Kumar asked whether the organisation had formally passed a resolution authorising the petition and whether it had been signed by the president. The counsel admitted that no such internal resolution had been passed before filing the PIL. The proceedings also brought renewed attention to the larger debate around faith, religious tradition, and locus standi in the Sabarimala Temple case. Supporters of the temple’s customs maintain that the practice is linked to Lord Ayyappa’s form as a Naishtika Brahmachari and represents a specific religious tradition rather than a question of gender-based exclusion.


The court’s remarks intensified scrutiny of the India Young Lawyers Association and its standing in the matter, with judges repeatedly questioning whether the organisation had any direct devotional connection to the practices it sought to challenge.

Background of the Sabarimala Case:

The 2018 decision of the Constitution was delivered in response to the original writ petition filed before the Supreme Court in 2006, seeking directions to allow women aged between 10 and 50 to enter the Sabarimala temple and to declare Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 unconstitutional for allegedly violating Articles 14, 15 and 25 of the Constitution.

In September 2018, a Constitution Bench, by a 4:1 majority, ruled in favour of allowing women aged 10 to 50 to enter the Sabarimala temple. Justice Indu Malhotra was the lone dissenting voice, who upheld the temple tradition prohibiting the entry of women of menstruating age into the temple.

The Supreme Court decision received huge backlash from Lord Ayyappa devotees, including women. Subsequently, review petitions were filed against the judgment. In November 2019, a five-judge Bench, by a 3:2 majority, observed that the judgment may impinge on the affairs of other religions too, and therefore, a detailed examination would be required. It referred the broader questions relating to the scope of religious freedom and essential religious practices to a nine-judge bench.