Which constitutional article abolishes untouchability and was invoked in the Sabarimala review?

Article 17 abolishes untouchability; it was cited by petitioners but rejected by Justice Nagarathna. Relevant for GS2.

Explain why the Supreme Court limited the Sabarimala case to Articles 14, 25 and 17, and not the 2018 judgment.

The Court clarified that the present petition raises fresh questions on equality, religious freedom and untouchability, which can be examined without overturning the earlier substantive finding. This procedural limitation ensures that only specific constitutional provisions are scrutinised. Relevant for GS2.

Discuss the challenges of reconciling cultural/religious practices with constitutional morality in India, drawing examples from the Sabarimala case and at least one other landmark judgment.

Structure the essay: (i) define constitutional morality vs. cultural autonomy; (ii) outline Sabarimala’s Articles 14, 25, 17 debate; (iii) discuss another case such as Shah Bano (maintenance rights) or Triple Talaq; (iv) evaluate the role of the judiciary; (v) conclude with policy implications and possible legislative approaches. Relevant for GS2.

Supreme Court Limits Sabarimala Review to ...

On the second day of the Supreme Court hearing on the Sabarimala case, the bench clarified that it will not revisit the 2018 verdict but will examine only specific constitutional questions. Justice B. V. Nagarathna highlighted that Article 17’s prohibition of untouchability cannot be invoked for a three‑day monthly restriction, while the Solicitor General argued that India’s social norms differ from Western notions of patriarchy.

Day 2 Hearing of the Sabarimala Case – Key Takeaways Overview The Supreme Court heard further arguments on the constitutionality of the entry ban for women of menstruating age at the Sabarimala Temple . The bench emphasized that it will not re‑examine the 2018 judgment but will focus on specific constitutional provisions raised by the parties. Key Developments (Day 2) Scope of Review: The Court stated that the matter is limited to interpreting Article 14 , Article 25 and related provisions, and will not revisit the earlier verdict. Justice B. V. Nagarathna’s Observation: The judge remarked, “There can’t be untouchability for three days a month,” rejecting the petitioners’ attempt to invoke Article 17 to justify the monthly restriction. Government’s Stand: The Solicitor General contended that India is not “patriarchal or gender‑stereotyped” in the Western sense, urging the Court to respect indigenous cultural practices while upholding constitutional guarantees. Petitioners’ Argument: They maintained that the ban violates the right to equality and freedom of religion, seeking a fresh review of the 2018 decision. Important Facts The 2018 judgment, delivered by a five‑judge bench, held that the ban on women aged 10‑50 at Sabarimala violated fundamental rights. The present petition challenges the applicability of the ban in the context of untouchability and cultural autonomy. UPSC Relevance Understanding this case is crucial for GS 2 (Polity) as it illustrates: The balance between equality and religious freedom . The role of the Supreme Court in interpreting fundamental rights. How cultural practices are examined under constitutional scrutiny, a recurring theme in ethics and governance questions. Way Forward The bench is expected to deliver a judgment focusing on the interplay of Articles 14, 25 and 17. Aspirants should monitor the final order for its impact on: Future jurisprudence on gender equality and religious customs. Potential legislative responses by the Union or state governments. Broader debates on secularism, cultural autonomy and constitutional morality. For UPSC preparation, candidates should revise the relevant constitutional articles, landmark judgments on gender and religion, and the procedural aspects of Supreme Court reviews.

<h2>Day 2 Hearing of the Sabarimala Case – Key Takeaways</h2> <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 involving the Union, states and fundamental rights (GS2: Polity)">Supreme Court</span> heard further arguments on the constitutionality of the entry ban for women of menstruating age at the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Sabarimala Temple — a prominent Hindu pilgrimage site in Kerala whose entry rules for women of menstruating age have been subject to constitutional scrutiny (GS1: Culture, GS2: Polity)">Sabarimala Temple</span>. The bench emphasized that it will not re‑examine the 2018 judgment but will focus on specific constitutional provisions raised by the parties.</p> <h3>Key Developments (Day 2)</h3> <ul> <li><strong>Scope of Review:</strong> The Court stated that the matter is limited to interpreting <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 14 of the Indian Constitution — ensures equality before law and equal protection of the laws to all persons (GS2: Polity)">Article 14</span>, <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 25 of the Indian 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> and related provisions, and will not revisit the earlier verdict.</li> <li><strong>Justice B. V. Nagarathna’s Observation:</strong> The judge remarked, “There can’t be untouchability for three days a month,” rejecting the petitioners’ attempt to invoke <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 17 of the Indian Constitution — abolishes untouchability and prohibits its practice, forming a core component of the right to equality (GS2: Polity)">Article 17</span> to justify the monthly restriction.</li> <li><strong>Government’s Stand:</strong> The <span class="key-term" data-definition="Solicitor General of India — the second-highest law officer of the Union, representing the government in Supreme Court matters (GS2: Polity)">Solicitor General</span> contended that India is not “patriarchal or gender‑stereotyped” in the Western sense, urging the Court to respect indigenous cultural practices while upholding constitutional guarantees.</li> <li><strong>Petitioners’ Argument:</strong> They maintained that the ban violates the right to equality and freedom of religion, seeking a fresh review of the 2018 decision.</li> </ul> <h3>Important Facts</h3> <p>The 2018 judgment, delivered by a five‑judge bench, held that the ban on women aged 10‑50 at Sabarimala violated fundamental rights. The present petition challenges the applicability of the ban in the context of untouchability and cultural autonomy.</p> <h3>UPSC Relevance</h3> <p>Understanding this case is crucial for <strong>GS 2 (Polity)</strong> as it illustrates:</p> <ul> <li>The balance between <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 14 of the Indian Constitution — ensures equality before law and equal protection of the laws to all persons (GS2: Polity)">equality</span> and <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 25 of the Indian Constitution — guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality and health (GS2: Polity)">religious freedom</span>.</li> <li>The role of the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Supreme Court of India — apex judicial body that interprets the Constitution and adjudicates disputes involving the Union, states and fundamental rights (GS2: Polity)">Supreme Court</span> in interpreting fundamental rights.</li> <li>How cultural practices are examined under constitutional scrutiny, a recurring theme in ethics and governance questions.</li> </ul> <h3>Way Forward</h3> <p>The bench is expected to deliver a judgment focusing on the interplay of Articles 14, 25 and 17. Aspirants should monitor the final order for its impact on: <ul> <li>Future jurisprudence on gender equality and religious customs.</li> <li>Potential legislative responses by the Union or state governments.</li> <li>Broader debates on secularism, cultural autonomy and constitutional morality.</li> </ul> </p> <p>For UPSC preparation, candidates should revise the relevant constitutional articles, landmark judgments on gender and religion, and the procedural aspects of Supreme Court reviews.</p>

Quick Reference

Key Insight

SC narrows Sabarimala review to Articles 14, 25, 17, shaping gender‑equality jurisprudence

Key Facts

The Supreme Court on Day 2 limited the Sabarimala review to Articles 14, 25 and 17, not revisiting the 2018 verdict.
Justice B. V. Nagarathna rejected the petitioners' claim that the three‑day monthly ban on women amounts to untouchability under Article 17.
The 2018 five‑judge bench had held that barring women aged 10‑50 from Sabarimala violated fundamental rights.
The Solicitor General argued that India’s cultural practices differ from Western patriarchy, urging respect for indigenous customs within constitutional limits.
Petitioners seek a fresh review, contending the ban infringes on equality (Art 14) and freedom of religion (Art 25).
The case underscores the Supreme Court’s role in balancing constitutional morality with religious and cultural autonomy.

Background

The Sabarimala dispute tests the interplay between gender equality, religious freedom and the abolition of untouchability—core themes of GS 2 (Polity). It reflects how the judiciary interprets fundamental rights when cultural practices clash with constitutional mandates.

Mains Angle

In Mains, candidates can address the tension between Articles 14, 25 and 17, analysing whether cultural autonomy can override constitutional equality, a likely question in GS 2 on secularism and gender justice.

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 Sabarimala Review to Constitutional Questions; Justice Nagarathna Rejects Untouchability Argument

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