As the governing hands of Kerala have changed, so have its stands on the Sabarimala Controversy. This has attracted widespread reportage.

An inspired Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Senior Advocate argued recently, a State Government cannot be allowed to change its stand before SC in proceedings borne out of Article 136, at time of arguments especially, merely because ‘of change of Government’/‘some other Political Party has come into power’. The submission is partially correct; it omits an exception.

“While it is true, rule of law cannot be sacrificed for sake of furthering political agendas, it is also a well established position of law, a stand taken by State Government can be changed subsequently if there is material on record to show, earlier action of State Government was illegal or suffers from legal malafides or colourable exercise of power.

Further, in any case, it is also a well settled position of law, this Court is not bound by affidavits and counter affidavits filed by parties. In exercise of its power under Article 136, this Court can examine material on record in order to determine whether action of previous State Government was in accordance with law or not.”

– Hon’ble Justice V. Gopala Gowda, Kedar Nath Yadav v. State of West Bengal [Civil Appeal No. 8438 of 2016].

Before we examine facts relevant to issue, we must reiterate, jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 is a discretionary jurisdiction to advance cause of justice. Court does not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 136 only because it is lawful to do so [C.K. Prahalada v. State of Karnataka, (2008) 15 SCC 577].

– Hon’ble Justice Manoj Misra, Ishwar (Deceased) v. Bhim Singh, [Civil Appeal No. 10193 of 2024] decided on 03.09.2024.