Charu Mathur: What was your view of Justice Indu Malhotra who dissented, did she give her views on this?

Prashant Padmanabhan: Yes

Charu Mathur: Did she revoke/ res judicata or something?

Prashant Padmanabhan: Yes. Justice Indu Malhotra mainly works on the locus principle; she is saying who are these people who are coming to court, they are Indian Young Lawyers Association. Look at their prayers, they are saying there is a practice; this court should give a direction not to harm this practice because it is against the Constitution. There is no specific prayer that we are believers in a deity at Sabarimala and we want to go there personally, that’s why she says unless somebody who is actually affected by that custom or that practice within that religion comes before the court and say that “I am affected”, how can the court invoke this jurisdiction to say that to correct a belief.

Charu Mathur: It is a PIL.

Prashant Padmanabhan: It is a PIL. And the basic idea of PILis locus rule is given above and only human beings go for the rights of animals or people who go for the rights of LGBT need not necessarily be belonging to that community. So many such instances are there.

Charu Mathur: Right.

Prashant Padmanabhan: So therefore I don’t think that Miss Indu Malhotra is right on that aspect. But that is hurting.

Charu Mathur: That is the basis of PIL that your private interest should not be there.

Prashant Padmanabhan: Yes

Charu Mathur: It has to be the larger good and here the Indian Young Lawyers Association was that the constitutional rights, the fundamental rights have been abridged of one gender and in a particular age group, so it should be allowed.

Prashant Padmanabhan: Yes.