Which constitutional article abolishes untouchability and was cited by Justice Nagarathna in the Sabarimala hearing?

Article 17 of the Indian Constitution abolishes untouchability and makes its practice punishable; it was highlighted by Justice Nagarathna during the hearing. Relevant for GS2.

State the two constitutional articles under which the 2018 Sabarimala verdict upheld women's right to enter the temple.

The verdict rested on Article 14 (equality before law) and Article 25 (freedom of religion), interpreting them to prohibit gender‑based exclusion from the temple. Relevant for GS2.

Discuss the challenges faced by the judiciary in balancing religious customs with constitutional guarantees of gender equality, using the Sabarimala case as an example.

Candidates should analyse the interplay of Articles 14, 17, 21 and 25, the concept of constitutional morality, the role of the Supreme Court’s limited review, and the broader implications for secularism and social justice. Relevant for GS2.

Supreme Court Limits Review to Constitutio...

The Supreme Court limited its review of the Sabarimala verdict to specific constitutional questions, with Justice Nagarathna invoking Article 17 to stress that untouchability cannot be tolerated even briefly. The Solicitor General argued that India’s gender norms differ from Western notions, underscoring the case's relevance to constitutional law and gender equality for UPSC aspirants.

Overview The Supreme Court on Day 1 of the hearing clarified that it will not re‑examine the Sabarimala verdict in its entirety. The bench will focus solely on specific constitutional questions raised by the petitioners. Key Developments (Day 1 & Day 2) Scope of Review : The Court stated that the matter will be limited to the interpretation of constitutional provisions, not a fresh assessment of the 2018 judgment. Justice Nagarathna 's remarks : She emphasized that Article 17 cannot be tolerated even for a limited period, saying, “There can't be untouchability for three days a month.” Solicitor General's submission : The Solicitor General argued that India is not “patriarchal or gender‑stereotyped as the West understands,” contending that the Sabarimala issue should be viewed within the Indian socio‑legal context. Day 2 hearing : Further arguments were presented, reinforcing the focus on constitutional interpretation, though the detailed transcript is pending. Important Facts The Sabarimala case revolves around the entry of women of menstruating age (10‑50 years) into the Sabarimala temple . The 2018 verdict upheld the right to equality under Article 14 and the right to freedom of religion under Article 25 . The present hearing questions whether the verdict aligns with other constitutional guarantees, notably Article 21 . UPSC Relevance Understanding the interplay of gender equality and constitutional safeguards is crucial for GS 2 (Polity). The debate highlights how the judiciary balances traditional customs with fundamental rights, a frequent UPSC essay topic. Moreover, the reference to untouchability underscores the Constitution’s social justice agenda, linking to GS 1 (Society) and GS 4 (Ethics). Way Forward The bench is expected to issue a detailed judgment delineating the constitutional parameters for religious practices. Aspirants should monitor the final order for its impact on religious freedom , gender rights , and the broader discourse on secularism versus cultural autonomy. The outcome will shape future jurisprudence on how constitutional provisions are applied to age‑old customs.

<h3>Overview</h3> <p>The <span class="key-term" data-definition="Supreme Court of India — apex judicial body that interprets the Constitution and adjudicates disputes on constitutional, civil and criminal matters (GS2: Polity)">Supreme Court</span> on Day 1 of the hearing clarified that it will not re‑examine the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Sabarimala verdict — 2018 judgment allowing women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala temple, invoking constitutional guarantees of equality (GS2: Polity)">Sabarimala verdict</span> in its entirety. The bench will focus solely on specific <span class="key-term" data-definition="constitutional questions — issues that pertain to the interpretation or validity of provisions in the Constitution (GS2: Polity)">constitutional questions</span> raised by the petitioners.</p> <h3>Key Developments (Day 1 & Day 2)</h3> <ul> <li><strong>Scope of Review</strong>: The Court stated that the matter will be limited to the interpretation of constitutional provisions, not a fresh assessment of the 2018 judgment.</li> <li><strong>Justice <span class="key-term" data-definition="Justice Nagarathna — senior judge of the Supreme Court known for her expertise in constitutional law (GS2: Polity)">Nagarathna</span>'s remarks</strong>: She emphasized that <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 17 — clause in the Indian Constitution that abolishes untouchability and makes its practice punishable (GS2: Polity)">Article 17</span> cannot be tolerated even for a limited period, saying, “There can't be untouchability for three days a month.”</li> <li><strong>Solicitor General's submission</strong>: The Solicitor General argued that India is not “patriarchal or gender‑stereotyped as the West understands,” contending that the Sabarimala issue should be viewed within the Indian socio‑legal context.</li> <li><strong>Day 2 hearing</strong>: Further arguments were presented, reinforcing the focus on constitutional interpretation, though the detailed transcript is pending.</li> </ul> <h3>Important Facts</h3> <p>The Sabarimala case revolves around the entry of women of menstruating age (10‑50 years) into the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Sabarimala temple — a prominent Hindu shrine in Kerala dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, traditionally restricting entry of women of reproductive age (GS1: Culture)">Sabarimala temple</span>. The 2018 verdict upheld the right to equality under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 14 — guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws (GS2: Polity)">Article 14</span> and the right to freedom of religion under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 25 — ensures freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion (GS2: Polity)">Article 25</span>. The present hearing questions whether the verdict aligns with other constitutional guarantees, notably <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 21 — protects the right to life and personal liberty, interpreted to include dignity and privacy (GS2: Polity)">Article 21</span>.</p> <h3>UPSC Relevance</h3> <p>Understanding the interplay of <span class="key-term" data-definition="gender equality — principle that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities, a recurring theme in GS 2 and GS 4 (Ethics)">gender equality</span> and constitutional safeguards is crucial for GS 2 (Polity). The debate highlights how the judiciary balances traditional customs with fundamental rights, a frequent UPSC essay topic. Moreover, the reference to <span class="key-term" data-definition="untouchability — social practice of ostracising certain castes, prohibited by Article 17 (GS 2: Polity)">untouchability</span> underscores the Constitution’s social justice agenda, linking to GS 1 (Society) and GS 4 (Ethics).</p> <h3>Way Forward</h3> <p>The bench is expected to issue a detailed judgment delineating the constitutional parameters for religious practices. Aspirants should monitor the final order for its impact on <strong>religious freedom</strong>, <strong>gender rights</strong>, and the broader discourse on secularism versus cultural autonomy. The outcome will shape future jurisprudence on how constitutional provisions are applied to age‑old customs.</p>

Quick Reference

Key Insight

SC narrows Sabarimala review to constitutional issues, spotlighting Article 17 and gender equality

Key Facts

The Supreme Court, on Day 1 of the hearing (2026), limited review of the 2018 Sabarimala verdict to constitutional questions only.
Justice Nagarathna warned that Article 17 (abolition of untouchability) cannot be tolerated even for a few days a month.
The 2018 verdict had upheld women’s right to enter Sabarimala temple under Articles 14, 25 and 21 of the Constitution.
The Solicitor General argued that India is not ‘patriarchal’ in the Western sense and the issue must be viewed in the Indian socio‑legal context.
The bench will examine whether the 2018 judgment aligns with other constitutional guarantees, especially Article 17 and Article 21.

Background

The Sabarimala case tests the balance between religious customs and fundamental rights, a core theme in GS 2 (Polity). It raises questions on gender equality, secularism, and the Constitution’s social‑justice provisions such as Articles 14, 17, 21 and 25.

Mains Angle

In Mains, candidates can discuss the tension between freedom of religion and gender equality, linking it to constitutional morality and social justice (GS 2). A possible question may ask to evaluate the judiciary’s role in reconciling traditional practices with fundamental rights.

Key Facts

Background & Context

Mains Answer Angle

Full Article

Practice Questions

Prelims MCQ

Mains Short Answer

Mains Essay

Quick Reference

Key Insight

Key Facts

Background

Mains Angle

Supreme Court Limits Review to Constitutional Issues in Sabarimala Verdict – Justice Nagarathna Cites Article 17, SG Says India Not Patriarchal

Overview

Key Facts

Background & Context

Mains Answer Angle

Full Article

Analysis

Practice Questions

Prelims MCQ

Mains Short Answer

Mains Essay

Quick Reference

Key Insight

Key Facts

Background

Mains Angle

Supreme Court Limits Review to Constitutional Issues in Sabarimala Verdict – Justice Nagarathna Cites Article 17, SG Says India Not Patriarchal