Sabarimala row: Justice Indu Malhotra's fear that permitting PILs in religious matters would open floodgates 'unfounded', says SC minority judgment

Justice RF Nariman, who wrote the minority judgment on behalf of himself and Justice DY Chandrachud, on Thursday’s verdict on Sabarimala review petitions said that the fear expressed by Justice Malhotra in the 2018 verdict that permitting PILs in religious matters would open floodgates to interlopers is unfounded New Delhi: The minority verdict of the Supreme Court in Sabarimala Temple case said on Thursday that Justice Indu Malhotra’s apprehension in the historic judgement last year that permitting PILs in religious matters would open floodgates to interlopers to question beliefs was “unfounded” as the majority judgment cannot be used to undermine the religious rights of others, including minorities. She had said that permitting PILs in religious matters would open floodgates to interlopers to question religious beliefs and practices, even if the petitioner is not a believer of a particular religion or a worshipper of a shrine. Indu Malhotra, in her dissenting judgment, has held that to entertain public interest litigation at the behest of persons who are not worshippers at Sabarimala temple would open the floodgates of petitions to be filed questioning the validity of religious beliefs and practices followed by other religious sects. She had further said that the petitioners do not claim to be devotees of the temple and permitting PILs in religious matters would open floodgates to interlopers to question religious beliefs and practices, even if the petitioner is not a believer of a particular religion or a worshipper of a shrine.