New Delhi: Justice B V Nagaratna on Tuesday raised strong concerns over practices that treat women as “untouchable” during menstruation, observing that such beliefs are difficult to reconcile with constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity.
The remarks came during hearings related to the entry of women into the Sabarimala Ayyappa Temple, where women between the ages of 10 and 50 have traditionally been barred. The matter is being considered by a nine-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Suryakant.
Justice Nagaratna noted that, as a woman, she does not support practices that consider menstruating women impure, and questioned the continuation of age-old customs that exclude women on this basis. The case touches upon fundamental rights, including equality and the abolition of untouchability.
The issue traces back to the landmark Supreme Court verdict in Indian Young Lawyers Association vs State of Kerala, delivered on September 28, 2018, which struck down the ban on women’s entry into Sabarimala. The court had held that the practice violated constitutional principles, including Article 17, which abolishes untouchability.
During the proceedings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that invoking Article 17 in this context could stretch the provision beyond its intended scope. He maintained that women in India hold positions of high authority, including that of President and Prime Minister, and that gender equality is being advanced through policy measures.
Mehta also contended that the restriction at Sabarimala is unique, rooted in the belief that Lord Ayyappa is a “Naishtika Brahmachari” (eternal celibate), and noted that women are allowed entry into other Ayyappa temples. According to him, this distinct religious character forms the basis of the custom.
However, the bench indicated that such arguments must be examined in light of constitutional morality and fundamental rights. The court is continuing to hear arguments on whether the practice can be justified or if it violates the principles of equality and non-discrimination.
The case remains a significant constitutional debate at the intersection of faith, gender justice, and fundamental rights.
