A nine-judge Bench Supreme Court of India has concluded it’s hearing of the Sabarimala case. It took 16 days. The Supreme Court sits in Division Bench of 2 or 3 judges. A maximum of 17 Benches. 5 hours a day and 200 days in a year. Maximum of 17000 hours.

To constitute the 9 judge Bench 5 courts had to be closed. That means 16×5×5=400 hours.

The greatest problem that the Supreme Court is facing is the mismatch between the numbers of cases instituted and its ability to disposed of the same expeditiously. The Supreme Court is faulted for dismissing almost all SLPs, may be 95% at the very admission stage in a hearing which on an average last 93 seconds by one-line, non speaking orders. Review Petitions under Article 137 and the so called curative petition almost all in Chambers without any hearing by cyclostyled orders. The pressure of work, I believe is the sole reason why the court is forced to dismiss SLPs and petition under Article 32 summarily.Litigants and lawyers are aghast. But they accept denial of justice as a fait accompli. Because if the Court to take a more lenient approach that will lead to opening of the flood gates. High Courts like Bombay follow the suit. Instead of granting relief the court only seeks reason to deny justice.

Our justice delivery system is at dare straight. Common man is treated as an untouchable. Ordinary litigant and lawyers are unheard, often ill-treated. On the contrary, cases that involve the rich and super-rich are heard out of turn. In High Courts like Bombay bail application of under trials are not heard for months.

It is in this extremely distressing situation that the Supreme Court has chosen hear the issue of faith Versus Equality for 16 long days.

The Sabarimala case is an imaginary issue, a non issue popped up Mrs. Indira Jaising and others for fame and name. I belong to Kerala. It is faith of the devotees of Lord Ayyappa at Sabarimala that the deity is a Naishtika Brahmachari and does not welcome women of menstruating age to visit the temple. There is no other belief. There are no women devotees who want to visit the temple. All my client’s who sought the Review of the 2018 judgment were women only.

The Supreme Court in 2018 declared that the restriction is against constitutional morality. The court did so entirely behind the back of the devotees. The judgment is therefore one rendered void ab initio, stillborn and never ever existed in the eyes of law.

Assuming that there are devotees who wanted to visit the temple, which is not the case, then, Mrs. Jaising ought to have approached the civil court and filed a representative suit and the decision in such a suit would be binding on the devotees. Instead of filing a representative suit in Kerala, Mrs. Singh’s client filed a PIL on the erroneous premise that constitutionality of the Rules which had imposed the restriction cannot be questioned in a suit. PIL was entertained.

Nobody told the Supreme court that the court has no jurisdiction to render a judgment behind the back of the millions and millions of devotees of Lord Ayyappa. Soon after the Sabarimala judgment of 2018 the devotees filed through me a Third party Review Petition as also a writ petition for a declaration that the said judgment is void because the court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute behind the backs of the devotees of Lord Ayyappa.

The court instead of Reviewing the judgment went on to make a reference to a nine-judge Bench.

The scenario today is calamitous. A non issue, nay a simple issue which involved no disputed questions of fact or law were argued for the two weeks. It was an exhibition of erudition and lawyerly skills when none was required.

I have my sympathies for the Hon’ble Judges. Lawyers on both sides have cited hundreds of judgements where none was required. If the judges were to make a reference to the judgments cited, most of which are irrelevant, vague and voluminous, the judgment would run into hundreds of pages.

In the days of Justice Krishna Iyer, complicated sentenced and hard words would have impressed the readers. Times have changed. ‘Brevity is the soul of the wit today’,as was during Shakespeare’s time. What the Generation Z expect from the court is a judgment which is precise, written in simple language, where one word is instead of two, nay one sentence instead of two.