Supreme Court ने Sabarimala Verdict में समीक्षा को संवैधानिक मुद्दों तक सीमित किया – Justice Nagarathna ने Article 17 का हवाला दिया, SG Says India Not Patriarchal

<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 li