Supreme Court Senior Advocate Venkatesh Defends Menstrual Temple Restrictions in Sabarimala Case

Senior Advocate MR Venkatesh argued before the nine‑judge Constitution Bench that women voluntarily abstaining from temples during menstruation is a matter of belief and discipline, not gender bias. Key Developments Venkatesh highlighted that across South India, women observe a self‑imposed restriction from entering temples and puja rooms during their monthly cycle, describing it as a “non‑written rule”. He cited Dr. B.R. Ambedkar 's speeches to argue that the Constitution treats temporary defilement differently from the social evil of untouchability. Reference was made to Rule 6 of the Travancore‑Cochin Temple Entry Rules , emphasizing that such rules stem from a denomination’s right to manage its own affairs. Venkatesh warned that a broad interpretation of Article 25(2) could erode religious autonomy, turning non‑denominational temples into mere public spaces. He distinguished between the right of entry under Article 25(2)(b) and the management rights protected by Article 26(b) , using the Supreme Court’s own functioning as an analogy. He argued that “section of Hindus” in Article 25(2)(b) should be read broadly to include all pilgrims, noting that caste distinctions dissolve during the Sabarimala yatra. The concept of sampradaya was presented as a protected entity under the Constitution. Important Facts The hearing is the fifth day of the Sabarimala judgment reference. The bench comprises CJI Surya Kant and Justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi . Venkatesh contended that regulation under Article 25(2)(a) must be limited to secular matters; any intrusion into core rituals would violate Article 13(2) . UPSC Relevance The debate touches upon three core areas of the UPSC syllabus: (1) Constitutional Law – interpretation of Articles 25 and 26, the doctrine of essential religious practices, and the balance between secular regulation and religious freedom; (2) Social Justice – Ambedkar’s distinction between untouchability and temporary impurity, reflecting the Constitution’s commitment to eradicate social evils; (3) Religion & Society – understanding diverse Hindu customs such as menstrual restrictions, pilgrimages, and the concept of sampradaya , which are essential for answering GS 2 and GS 4 questions on secularism and cultural diversity. Way Forward The bench is expected to deliver a judgment that clarifies whether menstrual restrictions qualify as a protected “essential religious practice” under Article 25(2) or whether they fall within the State’s power to regulate under Article 25(2)(a) . A nuanced decision will shape future jurisprudence on religious autonomy, gender equality, and the scope of constitutional secularism, making it a pivotal reference for UPSC aspirants preparing for questions on constitutional interpretation and social reforms.