New Delhi: A nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court led by CJI Surya Kant on Tuesday said the Supreme Court should have thrown into the dustbin the original PIL in 2006 which had struck down the practice of restricting entry of women in the age group of 10 to 50 years in the Sabarimala Ayyappa temple. “All India Young Lawyers Association”, which had filed the PIL in 2006 through its president Naushad Ali, through senior advocate RP Gupta explained how the petition challenging the ban was filed due to the misbehavior of the Ayyappa temple tantri. A bench led by CJI Kant said that the Supreme Court could have ordered a probe into the misconduct to punish the culprits. But based on newspaper reports, the PIL could not be considered.The bench said, “The SC had considered the PIL on the basis of ‘documents’ which should have been thrown in the dustbin. Locus standi was generated on the basis of newspaper reports. The SC should have ensured that action against the culprit is expedited and nothing more.” The nine-judge bench includes CJI Kant, Justice BV Nagarathna, MM Sundaresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Arvind Kumar, Augustine G Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi. Justice Kumar asked whether the lawyers’ body had passed any resolution to file PIL and whether it was a registered body. Gupta said no resolution was reached and although Naushad Ali was only a nominal lender, he and his lawyer were threatened. Gupta said, “The then CJI Deepak Mishra, who was the architect of the controversial decision, had offered security to the petitioner and his lawyer. Then CJI Mishra had said that even if the petitioner wanted to withdraw the PIL, the court would not allow it.” CJI Kant said, “So was it actually a suo motu petition (taken up by the court itself) filed by the petitioner organization?” The suggestion that the case was, in fact, prepared by a bench led by the then CJI Mishra found some vindication in Justice Nagarathna’s comment: “This is a realistic assessment of the CJI (Kant).”Justice Nagarathna said, “The former CJI had offered security to you and the president of the petitioner organization. He could have ensured that you did not face any security threat by not entertaining the petition. Why would a person who does not believe in Ayyappa question the decades-long temple customs based on the faith and belief of the devotees?” He asked, “Are you the chief priest of the country who will question the temple customs and say how such a practice can happen in the Ayyappa temple of Sabarimala.” Justice Sundaresh said this appeared to be a clear case of abuse of the process of law. Justice Nagarathna said the Supreme Court now considers genuine public interest litigations and is strictly against personal-publicity-money-political interest litigations.