Supreme Court ने Sabarimala समीक्षा को संवैधानिक प्रश्नों तक सीमित किया; Justice Nagarathna ने अस्पृश्यता तर्क को खारिज किया

<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-