NEW DELHI: A woman cannot be treated as “untouchable” for three days in a month and then cease to be considered untouchable on the fourth day, Supreme Court judge BV Nagarathna remarked on Tuesday during hearing of cases including Sabarimala issue.The remarks came as solicitor general Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, said he strongly objected to the 2018 Sabarimala judgment’s observation that barring women aged 10 to 50 from the temple amounted to “untouchability” under Article 17 of the Constitution.
“Article 17 in the context of Sabarimala, I don’t know how it can be argued. Speaking as a woman, there can’t be a three-day untouchability every month, and on the fourth day, there is no untouchability,” PTI quoted justice Nagarathna sayingThe observation came in response to Mehta’s statement: “India is not that patriarchal or gender stereotyped in the way that the West understands.”In the Sabarimala case, justice DY Chandrachud held that barring women from Kerala’s Sabarimala temple, whether due to age or menstrual status, amounts to “untouchability,” places them in a “subordinate” position, reinforces “patriarchy,” and undermines their dignity.Mehta said that the ban on women entering Sabarimala temple was not linked to menstruation, but was imposed solely based on a specific age group.“Let us be clear. Sabarimala concerns only a particular age group. There should be no confusion. Lord Ayyappa temples across the country and the world are open to women of all ages. It is only one temple which has this restriction. It is a sui generis case,” he said.
Poll
Do you think societal norms in India need to change regarding women participation in religious practices?
Moreover, the Centre strongly argued that the restriction on women aged 10 to 50 entering the Sabarimala temple is a matter of religious belief and denominational autonomy, and therefore lies outside the court’s jurisdiction.Citing the right to religious freedom under Article 25, Mehta noted that courts can step in if religious practices threaten “public order,” “morality,” or “health.” The Supreme Court added that if a practice considered religious amounts to a social ill, it can determine whether it is an essential religious practice or merely a harmful custom.A nine-judge bench was hearing petitions concerning discrimination against women at religious sites, including Kerala’s Sabarimala temple, and examining the extent and limits of religious freedom across different faiths.The Constitution bench included Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi.
