Supreme Court ने Sabarimala केस में समीक्षा को संवैधानिक प्रश्नों तक सीमित किया; Justice Nagarathna ने Article 17 का उल्लेख किया

<h2>Overview</h2> <p>The <span class="key-term" data-definition="Supreme Court of India — apex judicial body responsible for interpreting the Constitution and safeguarding fundamental rights (GS2: Polity)">Supreme Court</span> is hearing a fresh petition on the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Sabarimala case — a long‑standing litigation concerning the entry of women of menstruating age into the Sabarimala temple, raising issues of religion, gender equality and constitutional rights (GS2: Polity)">Sabarimala</span> matter. The bench clarified that it will not revisit the earlier verdict; instead it will examine only the pending <span class="key-term" data-definition="constitutional questions — matters that involve interpretation of the Constitution, especially fundamental rights and the balance of power among institutions (GS2: Polity)">constitutional questions</span>. During the proceedings, <span class="key-term" data-definition="Justice Nagarathna — a sitting judge of the Supreme Court known for her expertise in constitutional law (GS2: Polity)">Justice Nagarathna</span> highlighted the relevance of <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 17 — constitutional provision that abolishes untouchability and directs the State to eradicate the practice (GS2: Polity)">Article 17</span> in the context of the case, while the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Solicitor General — the chief legal adviser to the Government of India, representing the Union in Supreme Court matters (GS2: Polity)">Solicitor General</span> argued that India should not be labelled patriarchal by Western standards.</p> <h3>Key Developments (Day 1)</h3> <ul> <li>The Court ruled that the earlier <strong>Sabarimala verdict</strong> will not be re‑examined; only pending constitutional issues will be considered.</li> <li><strong>Justice Nagarathna</strong> remarked that "there can't be untouchability for three days a month," linking the debate to the spirit of <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 17 — constitutional provision that abolishes untouchability and directs the State to eradicate the practice (GS2: Polity)">Article 17</span>.</li> <li>The <strong>Solicitor General</strong> told the bench that India is "not patriarchal or gender‑stereotyped as the West understands," emphasizing a distinct cultural perspective.</li> </ul> <h3>Important Facts</h3> <ul> <li>The petition challenges the applicability of the 2018 <strong>Sabarimala verdict</strong> which allowed women of all ages to enter the temple.</li> <li>The debate centres on the clash between <span class="key-term" data-definition="freedom of religion — right guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution, allowing individuals to profess, practice and propagate religion (GS2: Polity)">freedom of religion</span> and the guarantee of gender equality under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 14 — ensures equality before law and equal protection of the laws (GS2: Polity)">Article 14</