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

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Supreme Court that India cannot be described as patriarchal in Western terms and warned against extending untouchability provisions to gender‑based temple entry bans. He highlighted women’s historic reverence, the role of "founding Mothers" in the Constitution, and argued that gender equality is already covered under Articles 14 and 15, not Article 25.

The Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta appeared before a nine‑judge Supreme Court on the Sabarimala reference. He argued that Indian society cannot be labelled ‘patriarchal’ in the Western sense and cautioned against extending constitutional doctrines such as untouchability to gender‑based temple entry restrictions. Key Developments Mehta asserted that India historically accords women a position of reverence, citing cultural and spiritual respect. He highlighted the contributions of women members of the Constituent Assembly, especially Rajkumari Amrit Kaur and Dr. Hansa Mehta, as "founding Mothers" of the Constitution. He explained that the phrase “all persons are equally entitled” in Article 25 was intended to ensure communal harmony post‑Partition, not gender equality. Regarding Article 26 , Mehta clarified that “any section thereof” protects sub‑groups within larger denominations. Justice Nagarathna called for recognition of women legislators as “Founding Mothers of the Constitution”. Important Facts The Sabarimala reference (case title: KANTARU RAJEEVARU v. INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION ) continues before the Constitution Bench. The debate centres on whether gender‑based restrictions on temple entry constitute a form of untouchability prohibited by Article 17 . Mehta contended that gender discrimination is already addressed under Articles 14 and 15, and should not be read into Article 25. UPSC Relevance Understanding this discourse is vital for GS‑2 (Polity) as it touches upon constitutional interpretation, the role of the Supreme Court, and the balance between religious freedom and gender equality. The reference to women’s participation in the Constituent Assembly links to GS‑1 (History) and the evolution of women’s rights in India. Moreover, the discussion on “untouchability” and its extension to gender‑based practices is pertinent to social justice themes in GS‑4 (Ethics). Way Forward Future judgments may clarify whether gender‑based temple restrictions fall within the ambit of untouchability, potentially influencing legislation on religious institutions. Aspirants should monitor the final verdict of the Constitution Bench, analyse the reasoning on Articles 25, 26, 14, 15 and 17, and assess its impact on the broader debate of secularism versus gender equality in India.

<p>The <span class="key-term" data-definition="Solicitor General of India — the second‑highest law officer of the Government of India, who represents the Union in the Supreme Court and advises on legal matters (GS2: Polity)">Solicitor General of India</span> <strong>Tushar Mehta</strong> appeared before a nine‑judge <span class="key-term" data-definition="Supreme Court (India) — the apex judicial body, guardian of the Constitution and final interpreter of law (GS2: Polity)">Supreme Court</span> on the Sabarimala reference. He argued that Indian society cannot be labelled ‘patriarchal’ in the Western sense and cautioned against extending constitutional doctrines such as untouchability to gender‑based temple entry restrictions.</p> <h3>Key Developments</h3> <ul> <li>Mehta asserted that India historically accords women a position of reverence, citing cultural and spiritual respect.</li> <li>He highlighted the contributions of women members of the Constituent Assembly, especially <span class="key-term" data-definition="Rajkumari Amrit Kaur — a freedom fighter and the first Health Minister of independent India, instrumental in framing the Constitution (GS1: History)">Rajkumari Amrit Kaur</span> and Dr. Hansa Mehta, as "founding Mothers" of the Constitution.</li> <li>He explained that the phrase “all persons are equally entitled” in <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 25 (Constitution) — guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality and health (GS2: Polity)">Article 25</span> was intended to ensure communal harmony post‑Partition, not gender equality.</li> <li>Regarding <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 26 (Constitution) — empowers religious denominations to manage their own affairs, including the right to establish and maintain institutions (GS2: Polity)">Article 26</span>, Mehta clarified that “any section thereof” protects sub‑groups within larger denominations.</li> <li>Justice <span class="key-term" data-definition="Justice N. V. Ramana (example) — senior judge of the Supreme Court, often part of Constitution Bench (GS2: Polity)">Nagarathna</span> called for recognition of women legislators as “Founding Mothers of the Constitution”.</li> </ul> <h3>Important Facts</h3> <p>The Sabarimala reference (case title: <em>KANTARU RAJEEVARU v. INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION</em>) continues before the Constitution Bench. The debate centres on whether gender‑based restrictions on temple entry constitute a form of untouchability prohibited by <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 17 (Constitution) — abolishes untouchability and forbids its practice (GS2: Polity)">Article 17</span>. Mehta contended that gender discrimination is already addressed under Articles 14 and 15, and should not be read into Article 25.</p> <h3>UPSC Relevance</h3> <p>Understanding this discourse is vital for GS‑2 (Polity) as it touches upon constitutional interpretation, the role of the Supreme Court, and the balance between religious freedom and gender equality. The reference to women’s participation in the Constituent Assembly links to GS‑1 (History) and the evolution of women’s rights in India. Moreover, the discussion on “untouchability” and its extension to gender‑based practices is pertinent to social justice themes in GS‑4 (Ethics).</p> <h3>Way Forward</h3> <p>Future judgments may clarify whether gender‑based temple restrictions fall within the ambit of untouchability, potentially influencing legislation on religious institutions. Aspirants should monitor the final verdict of the Constitution Bench, analyse the reasoning on Articles 25, 26, 14, 15 and 17, and assess its impact on the broader debate of secularism versus gender equality in India.</p>

Key Facts

Background & Context

UPSC Syllabus Connections

Mains Answer Angle

Full Article

Practice Questions

Prelims MCQ

Mains Short Answer

Mains Essay