The Supreme Court on 18 January 2016 asked the Delhi Police commissioner to apprise it of steps taken by police on the complaint filed by Indian Young Lawyers Association (IYLA) about the threats being given to its president for raising the issue of Kerala’s Sabarimala temple not allowing the entry of women aged between 10 and 50.
A bench of Justice Dipak Misra, Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghosh and Justice N.V.Ramana, while seeking the response, said: “We direct the commissioner of police to see that the attempts of this nature are crippled in the beginning.”
Noting that president of the petitioner IYLA has been provided with security, the court in its order said, “The commissioner of police shall take stock of the situation and see to it that no harm is caused to the aggrieved person.”
On a PIL by the IYLA, the apex court on January 11 had said that unless a temple had a constitutional right, it could not prohibit the entry of the women pilgrims to offer worship.
Referring to the plea by the petitioner about the threats being given to its president, the court said: “If they are true, they 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.”
“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,” the court said in its order.
Directing the further hearing on the application on February 8 when the main matter is listed for hearing, the court said that the thrust of the PIL by the IYLA was whether women within the age group of 10 to 50 should be allowed to enter into Sabarimala temple or not, and the matter would be determined in due course of the hearing.
