Skip to main content
Loading page, please wait…
HomeCurrent AffairsEditorialsGovt SchemesLearning ResourcesUPSC SyllabusPricingAboutUPSC AI ToolsUPSC AI ToolAI for UPSCUPSC ChatGPT

© 2026 Vaidra. All rights reserved.

PrivacyTerms
Vaidra Logo
Vaidra

Top 4 items + smart groups

UPSC GPT
New
Current Affairs
Daily Solutions
Daily Puzzle
Mains Evaluator

Version 2.0.0 • Built with ❤️ for UPSC aspirants

Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta Defends India’s Non‑Patriarchal Stance in Sabarimala Supreme Court Reference

"India has always treated women equally; we have always treated them at a higher pedestal," SG submitted.
"India has always treated women equally; we have always treated them at a higher pedestal," SG submitted.The Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, on Tuesday submitted before the Supreme Court in the Sabarimala reference that India cannot be characterised as a patriarchal or gender stereotyped society in the manner understood in Western discourse, while opposing the extension of constitutional doctrines such as untouchability to gender-based temple entry restrictions.Addressing the...Next Story
Loading article...

Quick Reference

Key Insight

Supreme Court’s Sabarimala debate pits religious freedom against gender equality – a UPSC hot‑topic

Key Facts

  1. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared before a nine‑judge Constitution Bench on the Sabarimala reference (KANTARU RAJEEVARU v. INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION).
  2. Mehta argued that India cannot be labelled ‘patriarchal’ in the Western sense and warned against extending untouchability doctrine to gender‑based temple entry restrictions.
  3. He cited Article 25 (freedom of religion) and Article 26 (right of religious denominations) as intended for communal harmony post‑Partition, not gender equality.
  4. Mehta contended that gender discrimination is already covered under Articles 14 (equality before law) and 15 (prohibition of discrimination), not Article 25.
  5. Reference to women members of the Constituent Assembly – Rajkumari Amrit Kaur and Dr. Hansa Mehta – as “founding Mothers” of the Constitution.
  6. Justice Nagarathna (Justice N. V. Ramana’s bench) urged recognition of women legislators as “Founding Mothers of the Constitution”.
  7. The core issue: whether gender‑based restriction at Sabarimala temple falls within the ambit of untouchability prohibited by Article 17.

Background

The Sabarimala reference tests the limits of constitutional interpretation on religious freedom versus gender equality, a key theme in GS‑2 (Polity) and GS‑1 (Societal diversity). It also highlights the historical role of women in framing the Constitution, linking to GS‑1 history and GS‑4 ethics on social justice.

UPSC Syllabus

  • Essay — Society, Gender and Social Justice
  • Essay — Philosophy, Ethics and Human Values
  • Prelims_GS — Constitution and Political System
  • GS1 — Salient features of Indian Society and Diversity of India
  • GS1 — Social Empowerment, Communalism, Regionalism and Secularism
  • GS2 — Executive and Judiciary - structure, organization and functioning
  • GS2 — Constitutional posts, bodies and their powers and functions
  • GS2 — Historical underpinnings, evolution, features, amendments, significant provisions and basic structure
Explore:Current Affairs·Editorial Analysis·Govt Schemes·Study Materials·Previous Year Questions·UPSC GPT
  1. Home
  2. Prepare
  3. Current Affairs
  4. Politics
  5. Burning Issues
  6. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta Defends India’s Non‑Patriarchal Stance in Sabarimala Supreme Court Reference
GS274% Exam RelevanceBurning Issues
Prelims
65%
Mains
86%
Login to bookmark articles
Login to mark articles as complete

Overview

Full Article

"India has always treated women equally; we have always treated them at a higher pedestal," SG submitted.The Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, on Tuesday submitted before the Supreme Court in the Sabarimala reference that India cannot be characterised as a patriarchal or gender stereotyped society in the manner understood in Western discourse, while opposing the extension of constitutional doctrines such as untouchability to gender-based temple entry restrictions.Addressing the...Next Story
Read Original on livelaw

Supreme Court’s Sabarimala debate pits religious freedom against gender equality – a UPSC hot‑topic

Key Facts

  1. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared before a nine‑judge Constitution Bench on the Sabarimala reference (KANTARU RAJEEVARU v. INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION).
  2. Mehta argued that India cannot be labelled ‘patriarchal’ in the Western sense and warned against extending untouchability doctrine to gender‑based temple entry restrictions.
  3. He cited Article 25 (freedom of religion) and Article 26 (right of religious denominations) as intended for communal harmony post‑Partition, not gender equality.
  4. Mehta contended that gender discrimination is already covered under Articles 14 (equality before law) and 15 (prohibition of discrimination), not Article 25.
  5. Reference to women members of the Constituent Assembly – Rajkumari Amrit Kaur and Dr. Hansa Mehta – as “founding Mothers” of the Constitution.
  6. Justice Nagarathna (Justice N. V. Ramana’s bench) urged recognition of women legislators as “Founding Mothers of the Constitution”.
  7. The core issue: whether gender‑based restriction at Sabarimala temple falls within the ambit of untouchability prohibited by Article 17.

Background & Context

The Sabarimala reference tests the limits of constitutional interpretation on religious freedom versus gender equality, a key theme in GS‑2 (Polity) and GS‑1 (Societal diversity). It also highlights the historical role of women in framing the Constitution, linking to GS‑1 history and GS‑4 ethics on social justice.

UPSC Syllabus Connections

Essay•Society, Gender and Social JusticeEssay•Philosophy, Ethics and Human ValuesPrelims_GS•Constitution and Political SystemGS1•Salient features of Indian Society and Diversity of IndiaGS1•Social Empowerment, Communalism, Regionalism and SecularismGS2•Executive and Judiciary - structure, organization and functioningGS2•Constitutional posts, bodies and their powers and functionsGS2•Historical underpinnings, evolution, features, amendments, significant provisions and basic structureGS4•Dimensions of ethics - private and public relationshipsGS2•Comparison with other countries constitutional schemes

Mains Answer Angle

GS‑2: Analyse the tension between Articles 25, 26 and Articles 14, 15, 17 in the Sabarimala case and evaluate how the judiciary can balance religious liberty with gender justice.

Analysis

Related PYQs

No related PYQs linked to this article yet.

Practice Questions

GS1
Easy
Prelims MCQ

Constitutional provisions – Article 17

2 marks
3 keywords
GS2
Medium
Mains Short Answer

Interpretation of Articles 25, 14, 15 in religious‑social contexts

10 marks
5 keywords
GS2
Hard
Mains Essay

Secularism, gender justice, constitutional interpretation

25 marks
11 keywords
Related:Daily•Weekly

Loading related articles...

Loading related articles...

Tip: Click articles above to read more from the same date, or use the back button to see all articles.

  • GS4 — Dimensions of ethics - private and public relationships
  • GS2 — Comparison with other countries constitutional schemes
  • Mains Angle

    GS‑2: Analyse the tension between Articles 25, 26 and Articles 14, 15, 17 in the Sabarimala case and evaluate how the judiciary can balance religious liberty with gender justice.

    Solicitor General Tushar Mehta Defends Ind... | UPSC Current Affairs

    Related Topics

    • 📰Current AffairsSupreme Court Warns Exclusion of Denominations in Temples Could Harm Hinduism – Sabarimala Reference Hearing
    • 📰Current AffairsSupreme Court धर्म में राज्य के हस्तक्षेप पर सीमाएँ – Sabarimala Reference (Article 25(2)(b) Debate)
    • 📚Subject TopicWhat are the Key Facts of the Case and the Supreme Court’s Ruling?
    • 📚Subject TopicWhat are the Supreme Court’s Rulings and Legal Notifications on the Aravallis?
    • 📚Subject TopicSupreme Court Ruling on the SC and ST Act 1989