Sabarimala Review Hearing Continues on Day 3: SG Mehta Says Sabarimala Judgement Proceeds On Assumption That Men Are Superior

Key Points

The Supreme Court’s nine-judge Constitution Bench on Thursday, 9th April proceeded with the third day of hearings in the significant Sabarimala reference case. The bench is examining seven key constitutional questions related to religious freedom, women’s rights, and equality in places of worship. Its verdict is expected to have a wide impact on similar disputes involving religious practices across India.

On the third day of the hearing, the Union Government firmly backed the long-standing Kerala tradition that restricts the entry of women of menstruating age into the Sabarimala Ayyappa temple. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre before the bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, argued that the Supreme Court’s 2018 judgment lifting the ban was based on a flawed assumption. He said the earlier verdict wrongly presumed that such restrictions placed women on a lower pedestal or reflected male superiority.

Mehta emphasised that religious practices stem from specific faith and beliefs rather than gender discrimination. To illustrate this, he cited the example of the Kottankulangara Sree Devi Temple in Kerala, where men traditionally dress as women, visit beauty parlours, and wear sarees with the help of female family members before offering prayers. “It is not a question of male-centric or female-centric religious beliefs,” Mehta told the court. “In the present case, it happens to be woman-centric.”

See also: SC’s Nine-Judge Bench Begins Final Hearing on Sabarimala Review: Centre Argues Religious Practices Cannot Be Reduced to Gender or Dignity Issues

Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj further submitted that courts should apply the standard of “public morality” rather than “constitutional morality” while examining such religious traditions.

Senior Advocate Vaidyanathan, addressing the court on the scope and extent of the judicial review with regard to religious practices, argues that this matter does not fall within the purview of judicially manageable matters. “Whether it is religious in character or secular in character is a test for the purpose of determining whether a law can be made, but not whether a particular practice is essential to the religion. That is not a matter which can be considered by the Court,” he stated. 

See also: Why Sabarimala controversy is religious issue, not women’s rights issue

Key Highlights of the hearing from Day 1 and 2

During the maiden hearing of the reference held on Tuesday 7th April, SG Mehta argued that not every religious practice can be seen through the lens of the issue of dignity, personal choice, or gender discrimination. “Every denomination practice we have to respect; everything is not related to dignity or bodily freedom,” he stated. 

In the 2018 Sabarimala hearing, Justice Chandrachud held that excluding menstruating women from temple entry constitutes a form of "untouchability" which places them in a "subordinate" position, perpetuated "patriarchy" and is "derogatory" to their dignity. Based on that, Justice Nagarathan remarked:  “There can't be a three-day untouchability every month, and on the fourth day, there is no untouchability." 

On the day 2 hearing, on 8th April, SG Mehta argued that if a religious belief or practice does not harm public order, morality, or health, then courts should not examine or question it on the basis of logic, science, or rationality.

Speaking on the definition of ‘essential practices’ in a religion, Justice Nagarathna said the court should check what is an essential religious practice by looking at the philosophy of that religion itself, and not by comparing it with other religions. She clarified that this is still subject to public order, morality, and health.

The current hearing traces its origin to the Supreme Court’s 2018 verdict, in which a five-judge bench had allowed women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala temple, overturning the centuries-old custom. The decision triggered massive protests in Kerala. Following several review petitions, the court in 2019 referred larger issues, including the scope of the Essential Religious Practices test, the balance between Articles 25 and 26 (freedom of religion) and Article 14 (equality), and conflicting earlier judgments, to a larger bench for final clarity.

The nine-judge Constitution Bench hearing the matter comprises Chief Justice Surya Kant along with Justices B.V. Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B. Varale, R. Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi. The hearing, which began on April 7, is likely to continue over the coming days. The final judgment is expected to lay down important guidelines on the extent of judicial intervention in religious matters across the country.

Suggested reading: