What Happened
- During the nine-judge bench hearing of the Sabarimala reference on April 7, 2026, Justice B.V. Nagarathna sharply questioned the logic of excluding women from temple entry on grounds of menstruation.
- Justice Nagarathna observed that a woman cannot be treated as "untouchable" for three days in a month and then cease to be considered untouchable on the fourth day — calling this reasoning internally incoherent.
- She also stated: "If there is a social evil branded as a religious practice, courts can certainly distinguish between the two."
- The Union Government objected to the 2018 ruling's parallel between menstruation-based exclusion and untouchability under Article 17, arguing they are categorically different.
- The Centre argued that "patriarchy is alien to India," that India has historically placed women on a high pedestal, and that religious faith in this matter is beyond judicial review.
- The Centre backed the continuation of the restriction on menstruating women, urging the court to respect the religious sentiments of devotees.
Static Topic Bridges
Article 17 — Abolition of Untouchability
Article 17 of the Constitution abolishes untouchability and forbids its practice in any form, making enforcement of any disability arising from untouchability a punishable offence. The Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 operationalises this provision.
- Traditionally, untouchability referred to caste-based social exclusion practised against Scheduled Castes.
- Justice D.Y. Chandrachud's concurring opinion in the 2018 Sabarimala verdict significantly expanded the scope, holding that Article 17 captures all stigmatic exclusion from public religious spaces based on physiological characteristics — including menstruation.
- The 9-judge bench is now re-examining whether Article 17 applies beyond caste-based untouchability to gender-based exclusions rooted in notions of bodily impurity.
- Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955: penalises enforcement of disabilities arising from untouchability with imprisonment up to 6 months and/or fine up to ₹500 (enhanced by 1977 amendment).
Connection to this news: Justice Nagarathna's remark that women cannot be treated as untouchables "for three days a month" directly engages the expanded reading of Article 17 — questioning the Centre's position that caste-based and menstruation-based exclusions are fundamentally different.
Article 25 and the Right of Women to Freedom of Religion
Article 25(1) guarantees to every person — not just citizens — the right to freely profess, practise, and propagate religion. When two persons' religious rights conflict (a devotee wishing to enter vs. the temple's right to maintain practices), courts must adjudicate which right prevails.
- The 2018 majority held that the right of women devotees to worship at Sabarimala flows directly from Article 25(1) and cannot be curtailed by the temple trust's practices.
- Justice Indu Malhotra's dissent (2018): Courts should not interfere with the sincerely-held religious beliefs and practices of a religious denomination; the issue should be decided within the community, not by courts.
- The 9-judge bench will settle the interplay between an individual's right to worship (Article 25) and a denomination's right to manage its religious affairs (Article 26).
Connection to this news: Justice Nagarathna's questioning of the government's position signals that at least one member of the bench is likely to closely scrutinise the claim that the restriction is a bona fide religious practice rather than a social evil dressed as religion.
Constitutional Morality Doctrine
Constitutional morality, as articulated by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly (1948) and applied in recent Supreme Court judgments, holds that the Constitution's values — equality, dignity, non-discrimination — must prevail even when they conflict with prevailing social or religious norms.
- Ambedkar's address (November 4, 1948): "Constitutional morality is not a natural sentiment. It has to be cultivated. We must realise that our people have yet to learn it."
- Applied in: Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) — decriminalisation of homosexuality; Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018) — striking down adultery law; Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018) — Sabarimala.
- The doctrine enables courts to strike down practices that enjoy popular acceptance but violate constitutional values.
Connection to this news: The Centre's argument that religious faith is "beyond judicial review" directly challenges the doctrine of constitutional morality. The 9-judge bench's ruling will determine the limits of judicial intervention in religious matters.
Judicial Deference and "Non-Justiciability" in Religious Matters
A recurring judicial debate concerns how far courts should go in examining the content of religious beliefs. Some judges advocate restraint; others argue that constitutional values require active scrutiny.
- In Adelaide Company of Jehovah's Witnesses v. Commonwealth (Australian precedent cited in Indian cases), courts avoided examining the validity of religious doctrine.
- Justice Indu Malhotra's 2018 dissent embodies the deference approach — courts should not determine what is essential to a religion if sincere believers hold the practice to be integral.
- The majority approach (2018): Sincerity of belief does not immunise a practice from constitutional scrutiny if it violates fundamental rights.
- The 9-judge bench's decision on this question will have implications for all faith communities in India.
Connection to this news: The Centre's argument that "religious faith is beyond judicial review" essentially advocates the deference approach. Justice Nagarathna's questioning suggests the bench may not accept uncritical deference where gender-based exclusion is concerned.
Key Facts & Data
- Justice B.V. Nagarathna is one of the senior-most women judges on the Supreme Court and was the sole woman on the 2022 bench that delivered the Same-Sex Marriage verdict.
- The 2018 Sabarimala verdict cited Article 17 (untouchability), Article 14 (equality), Article 15 (non-discrimination), and Article 25 (religious freedom).
- The Centre's 2026 position reversed its earlier stance — the Union Government had initially supported the 2018 verdict in the original hearings.
- Justice D.Y. Chandrachud's 2018 concurrence on Article 17 remains the most expansive interpretation; it is now under review.
- The Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 makes untouchability-related disabilities a criminal offence; the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 provides additional protection.
- The hearing is watched globally as a test of India's commitment to gender equality within constitutional democracy.