Women cannot be seen as ‘untouchables’ for three days a month: Justice Nagarathna in Sabarimala case
Centre objects to 2018 ruling drawing parallels between the Sabarimala bar on menstruating women and the practice of untouchability; S-G claims India is not as patriarchal or gender-stereotyped as the West understands
360° Perspective Analysis
Deep-dive into Geography, Polity, Economy, History, Environment & Social dimensions — AI-powered, on-demand
Context
A 9-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court is currently hearing broad constitutional questions stemming from the review of the 2018 Sabarimala judgment. During the hearings, Justice B.V. Nagarathna strongly disagreed with the 2018 ruling's premise that barring menstruating women constitutes untouchability, while the Centre argued for protecting denominational religious rights over individual dignity.
UPSC Perspectives
Polity
The debate centres on the interpretation of Fundamental Rights, specifically balancing individual equality against collective religious freedom. In the 2018 Sabarimala verdict, the court expanded the scope of (which abolishes untouchability) by equating the exclusion of menstruating women to a form of untouchability based on purity. However, Justice B.V. Nagarathna critiqued this, arguing that untouchability is a historical, caste-based construct that cannot apply selectively for three days a month. Furthermore, the Centre defended the temple's custom under (the fundamental right of religious denominations to manage their own affairs in matters of religion). The government argued that the restriction on women aged 10-50 is a sui generis (unique) denominational practice tied to the deity's celibate nature, not a general boycott of women. For UPSC aspirants, understanding the friction between individual rights and group religious rights is crucial for GS Paper 2.
Governance
This issue highlights the limits of judicial review (the judiciary's power to examine the constitutionality of actions) in matters of faith. The Supreme Court has historically used the test to determine if a specific custom is core to a religion and thus protected from state interference. The Solicitor General argued that courts lack the spiritual expertise to evaluate religious tenets on the touchstone of modern rationality or individual dignity. This brings into focus the concept of (adherence to the core principles of the Constitution like equality and liberty), which the 2018 judgment used to strike down the ban. The 9-judge bench's eventual ruling will redefine how far the state can intervene to reform religious institutions without infringing on their autonomy, a key governance theme.
Social
At the heart of the Sabarimala dispute is the clash between traditional customary beliefs and the modern right to a life with dignity under . The 2018 judgment heavily criticised the social exclusion of women based on menstruation, identifying notions of "purity and pollution" as discriminatory and a violation of (Right to Equality). It observed that burdening a woman with a man's vow of celibacy is patriarchal and reduces her to a cause of deviation. Conversely, the Centre argued that the ban is specific to the Sabarimala deity and does not reflect a broader societal patriarchy, claiming India's cultural reverence for women is distinct from Western patriarchal models. UPSC frequently tests the tension between customary practices and women's empowerment in GS Paper 1 and Essay papers.