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.
Exam Relevance
Understanding this case is crucial for GS 2 (Polity) as it illustrates:
- The balance between