Supreme Court Questions “Three-Day Untouchability” Argument in Sabarimala Hearing
Justice B V Nagarathna challenges monthly exclusion logic as Constitution Bench examines balance between religious freedom and gender equality
New Delhi, April 7 — The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday heard arguments in a series of petitions concerning alleged discrimination against women at religious places, including the Sabarimala Temple in Kerala. During the proceedings, Justice B V Nagarathna raised concerns over the notion of treating women as “untouchable” during certain days of the month.
Hearing the matter as part of a nine-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Nagarathna observed, “There can’t be a three-day untouchability every month, and on the fourth day, there is no untouchability,” questioning the rationale behind such practices.
The bench, which also includes Justices M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi, is examining the scope of religious freedom across faiths and its intersection with constitutional guarantees of equality.
Appearing for the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta objected to a key observation made in the landmark Indian Young Lawyers Association vs State of Kerala judgment. He argued that the exclusion of women aged 10 to 50 from the Sabarimala temple should not be equated with “untouchability” under Article 17 of the Constitution.
In the 2018 verdict, Justice D Y Chandrachud had held that restricting women based on age or menstrual status amounted to a form of untouchability, reinforcing patriarchal norms and undermining women’s dignity.
Clarifying the Centre’s position, Mehta stated that the restriction at Sabarimala is not based on menstruation but applies only to a specific age group. He emphasized that other temples dedicated to Lord Ayyappa are open to women of all ages, describing the Sabarimala practice as a unique case.
The matter remains under consideration, with the Constitution bench continuing its hearing on the broader constitutional questions involved.
Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is for general informational purposes only. While we endeavor to keep the information up to date and correct, News Setu makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk.