INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present interlocutory application exposits and asserts Digitally signed by Gulshan Kumar Arora such facts, if they are true, would definitely have the strength to create a dent in the fundamental concept of Rule of Law which is sacrosanct in a democratic body polity. It has been asservated that there have been innumerable threats inclusive of death threats to the President of the Petitioner -Association, namely, Indian Young Lawyers ' Association for agitating the grievance in this writ petition preferred under Article 32 of the Constitution of India which is basically a public interest litigation.

(2.) ACCESS to justice cannot be dented by any authority or any person. It can only be controlled by a court of law within the parameters of law. Individual whim or fancy or perception has no room. However, to have the complete picture, we think it apt to reproduce four paragraphs from the application which read as follows :

(3.) THESE paragraphs are basically an explanation by the President of the Association that the Association has proceeded to file the petition and he as a person, has no role in the same. The said explanation, if we allow ourselves to say so, is absolutely unnecessary. The affidavit has been sworn by one Ms. Bhakti Pasrija, who is the General Secretary of the Association. It is a public interest litigation meant for canvassing the cause for gender equality, that is perception of Mr. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the Association. The thrust of the matter is whether women within the age group of 10 to 50 should be allowed to enter into Sabarimala temple or not has to be debated in due course when the matter is taken up for hearing by this Court. Hearing in a court of law is not dependent, especially in a public interest litigation by any person. Once the public interest litigation is entertained by this Court taking the lis into consideration, even if the President of the Association desires to withdraw the same, this Court may decline to grant that permission. That apart, as we find, there are other petitioners.