Supreme Court Limits Review of Sabarimala Verdict to Constitutional Issues, Citing Article 17 and Gender Equality

Overview The Supreme Court has clarified that its ongoing hearing on the Sabarimala matter will not revisit the 2018 Sabarimala verdict . Instead, the bench will focus solely on specific constitutional questions raised by the petitioners. Key Developments (Day 1) The Court ruled that the earlier judgment will not be re‑examined in its entirety; only the applicability of Article 17 to the temple’s customs will be considered. Justice Nagarathna emphasized that "there can't be untouchability for three days a month," underscoring that periodic exclusion of women cannot be justified under the anti‑untouchability clause. The Solicitor General argued that India is not patriarchal in the Western sense and that the temple’s practices should be examined through a constitutional, not cultural, lens. Day 2 Hearing – Pending Details of the second day’s arguments were not disclosed at the time of reporting. Important Facts The original 2018 judgment struck down the ban on women aged 10‑50 from entering the Sabarimala shrine, invoking Articles 14, 15, and 25 of the Constitution. Petitioners contend that the ban is a form of gender stereotyping that violates equality guarantees. The Government, through the Solicitor General, maintains that the practice is a matter of religious belief, not state policy, and therefore falls outside the ambit of constitutional scrutiny. UPSC Relevance Understanding this case is crucial for GS 2 (Polity) as it illustrates the tension between fundamental rights and religious freedom, a recurring theme in constitutional jurisprudence. The reference to Article 17 highlights how anti‑discrimination provisions can be invoked beyond caste‑based untouchability, extending to gender‑based exclusion. For GS 4 (Ethics) , the debate raises questions about cultural relativism versus universal human rights, a topic often examined in ethics and governance. Way Forward The bench is expected to issue a detailed order on the applicability of Article 17 to the Sabarimala customs. Aspirants should monitor subsequent judgments for: Clarifications on the scope of "public order" and "religious freedom" under Articles 25‑26. Potential guidelines for reconciling traditional practices with constitutional equality mandates. Implications for future litigation involving gender‑based restrictions in religious contexts. Staying updated on these developments will aid answer‑writing in both essay and case‑study formats in the UPSC examination.