The Supreme Court criticized the Indian Young Lawyers Association over its 2006 PIL seeking to lift the Sabarimala temple ban on women’s entry. The bench questioned the group’s standing to file the case, calling the move an abuse of the process of law, and urged it to focus on bar welfare instead of religious matters.
The Supreme Court said every religious institution must function with norms and modalities, not anarchy, while hearing pleas challenging discrimination against women at Sabarimala. A nine-judge bench stressed that the right to manage religious affairs cannot be used to justify unchecked actions. Regulation is permissible only within constitutional limits, including safeguards against discrimination.
Your news, in seconds
Get the Beige app — every story in 60 words, updated hourly. Free on iOS & Android.
The Supreme Court, hearing petitions tied to religious freedom and discrimination, said it respects learned opinions but dismissed “WhatsApp University” information as unreliable. The remarks came during proceedings before a nine-judge bench examining rules around women’s entry into temples, including the Sabarimala matter. Lawyers cited scholarly works while arguing how constitutional rights should apply.
Swipe through stories, personalise your feed, and save articles for later — all on the app.
