What Happened
- A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, resumed hearing the Sabarimala reference case in April 2026
- The bench asked whether the exclusion of menstruating women from Sabarimala temple constitutes "untouchability" under Article 17 of the Constitution
- Justice V. Nagarathna, the sole woman on the bench, observed: "Speaking as a woman, I can say — there can't be three-days of untouchability every month and then on the fourth day, there is no untouchability"
- The Solicitor General objected to the 2018 judgment's equation of temple entry restriction with untouchability, arguing India does not have a patriarchal tradition
- The 1991 Kerala government rule — which barred women aged 10–50 from entering Sabarimala — is under scrutiny for constitutional validity
- The bench is examining overarching constitutional questions on women's access to public religious institutions
Static Topic Bridges
Sabarimala Case — History and Legal Journey
The Sabarimala dispute began when a group of lawyers (Indian Young Lawyers Association) challenged the centuries-old practice of barring women of menstruating age (10–50 years) from the Sabarimala temple in Kerala.
- 1991: Kerala Government issued a rule under the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules barring women aged 10–50 from Sabarimala
- 2018: A five-judge Constitution Bench (4:1) struck down the restriction as unconstitutional, holding it violated Articles 14, 17, 19(1)(b), and 25
- The lone dissent came from Justice Indu Malhotra, who argued courts should not interfere in matters of essential religious practice
- 2019: After review petitions, the five-judge bench referred broader questions to a nine-judge bench — these questions apply not just to Sabarimala but to all similar exclusionary religious practices
- 2024–2026: Nine-judge bench constituted and hearings commenced under CJI Surya Kant
Connection to this news: The current hearing is not just about Sabarimala — it will decide constitutional questions that could affect exclusionary practices in mosques, dargahs, churches, and other religious sites across India.
Article 17 — Abolition of Untouchability
Article 17 of the Indian Constitution states: "Untouchability is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden." It is one of the few provisions that apply against both the State and private individuals.
- Article 17 is non-derogable — it cannot be suspended even during a national emergency
- The Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (formerly Untouchability Offences Act, 1955) gives statutory teeth to Article 17
- "Untouchability" is not defined in the Constitution — courts have given it a broad interpretation beyond caste-based discrimination
- Justice DY Chandrachud's 2018 concurring opinion in Sabarimala explicitly held that treating women as "impure" during menstruation is a form of untouchability
- The broader nine-judge bench question: does "untouchability" extend to gender-based ritual exclusions?
Connection to this news: Justice Nagarathna's observation echoes Justice Chandrachud's 2018 reasoning — if untouchability means treating a person as impure/polluting, then menstrual exclusion fits the definition regardless of gender, not just caste.
Article 25 and 26 — Freedom of Religion
Articles 25 and 26 protect the freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion, as well as the right of religious denominations to manage their affairs.
- Article 25(1): All persons equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise and propagate religion — subject to public order, morality, and health
- Article 25(2)(b): The State can make laws providing for social welfare and reform or throwing open Hindu religious institutions to all classes/sections of Hindus
- Article 26: Religious denominations can manage their own affairs in matters of religion
- "Essential Religious Practice" doctrine: Courts only protect practices that are essential/integral to a religion, not every practice
- Devaswom Board (which manages Sabarimala) is a state body — making it a State action under Article 12
Connection to this news: The core tension the nine-judge bench must resolve is: can religious freedom (Articles 25-26) justify practices that violate fundamental rights (Articles 14, 17) of women? The court must determine whether exclusion is an "essential religious practice."
Constitutional Morality vs. Popular Morality
A key conceptual debate in Indian constitutional law is between constitutional morality (adherence to constitutional values like equality) and popular morality (prevailing social norms).
- The concept was developed by Dr B.R. Ambedkar, who argued the Constitution must override prevailing social morality when the two conflict
- CJI Dipak Misra's 2018 majority opinion in Sabarimala invoked constitutional morality to strike down the temple ban
- Critics argued the court was imposing constitutional morality against the genuine religious beliefs of lakhs of devotees
- The nine-judge bench must balance: right of devotees to practice religion vs. right of women to equality and dignity
- Similar questions arise in: triple talaq, female genital mutilation, temple entry for Dalits
Connection to this news: Justice Nagarathna's framing — using her identity as a woman to comment on menstrual untouchability — brings lived experience into constitutional reasoning, a form of "experiential constitutional morality."
Key Facts & Data
- The Sabarimala temple is located in Pathanamthitta district, Kerala, at an altitude of 914 m
- The five-judge bench 2018 verdict: 4:1 in favour of allowing women's entry
- The single dissent in 2018 was by Justice Indu Malhotra
- The nine-judge bench is led by CJI Surya Kant (2026 hearing)
- 1991 Kerala rule: barred women aged 10–50 from Sabarimala
- Article 17 abolishes untouchability; Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 enforces it
- Article 25(2)(b) allows State to reform Hindu religious institutions for social welfare
- Justice Nagarathna is the only woman judge on the current nine-judge bench
- The reference covers questions applicable to exclusionary practices in all religions, not just Sabarimala