New Delhi: Amid the ongoing constitutional debate over faith versus fundamental rights in the Sabarimala case, Justice B V Nagarathna strongly criticised the social practice of isolating menstruating women, calling it unacceptable.
Part of the nine-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Nagarathna expressed her personal disagreement with traditions that treat women as impure during menstruation. “As a woman, I do not agree. There cannot be three days of untouchability in a month for women, after which they are treated as normal,” she remarked.
The observations came during arguments on the 2018 Supreme Court judgment in Indian Young Lawyers Association vs State of Kerala, which struck down the ban on entry of women aged 10–50 into the Sabarimala temple. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta questioned the application of Article 17—abolishing untouchability—to this religious practice.
Mehta argued that women hold prominent positions across India and are widely respected, suggesting that extending Article 17 to temple customs stretches constitutional interpretation. He emphasised that the restriction at Sabarimala is unique, as devotees regard Lord Ayyappa as a “naishtik brahmachari” (eternal celibate), making the practice distinct from other temples where women of all ages are allowed.
Justice M M Sundresh noted that the Centre’s position is that such practices are intrinsically tied to religious faith and therefore may fall outside judicial review.
However, the case continues to raise fundamental questions about the balance between gender equality, religious freedom, and constitutional morality—issues the bench is expected to examine in depth.
