Supreme Court Justice Nagarathna Challenges Article 17 Application in Sabarimala Case – 2026 Hearing

Key Insight

Justice Nagarathna’s Article 17 critique spotlights the gender‑religion clash in the Sabarimala case

Key Facts

1. Justice B.V. Nagarathna, a Supreme Court judge, questioned the selective application of Article 17 during the 2026 Sabarimala hearing.
2. She remarked that a woman cannot be treated as "untouchable" for three days in a month and then cease to be untouchable on the fourth day.
3. The comment was made in response to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta’s criticism of her observation.
4. The Sabarimala reference revisits the 2018 verdict that struck down the ban on women’s entry under Articles 14, 15 and 25 of the Constitution.
5. Article 17 abolishes untouchability; its applicability to gender‑based discrimination in religious spaces is under debate.
6. The hearing forms part of a review petition filed by the Kerala government and temple authorities seeking to reinstate the traditional ban on women of menstruating age.
7. The case highlights the tension between fundamental rights (equality, non‑discrimination) and freedom of religion.

Background

The Sabarimala dispute sits at the intersection of constitutional law, gender equality and religious freedom—core topics of GS 1 and GS 2. It tests the Supreme Court’s role in interpreting fundamental rights, especially Article 17 (abolition of untouchability), in contemporary gender‑rights debates.

Mains Angle

GS 2 (Polity) – Discuss the challenges of balancing fundamental rights with religious practices, using Justice Nagarathna’s Article 17 observation in the Sabarimala case as a focal point.