Women cannot be seen as ‘untouchables’ for three days a month, says SC judge

1. At a Glance

• Supreme Court's 9-judge Constitution Bench is hearing the Sabarimala reference — whether Article 17 (abolition of untouchability) applies beyond caste to exclude menstruating women from temple entry [1][4].
• Justice B.V. Nagarathna questioned the doctrinal fit of invoking Article 17 for a practice confined to "three days a month," while the Centre called the Sabarimala bar sui generis [1][2].
• Tests interlinkage of fundamental rights (Art. 25, 26), essential religious practices doctrine, and untouchability jurisprudence — a recurring GS-II/GS-IV theme.
• High-value topic: rare instance of a woman judge's minority-flavoured constitutional reasoning shaping a live 9-judge reference.

2. Why in the News

• On 7 April 2026, Justice Nagarathna orally remarked that women "cannot be seen as untouchables" selectively for three days a month, during Sabarimala reference hearings before the 9-judge Bench [2].
• Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta, for the Centre, argued the Sabarimala prohibition was sui generis (unique) to the shrine and age-based, not time-based, and other Ayyappa temples worldwide admit women of all ages [2].
• The Bench reserved judgment after 16 days of hearing [1][3].

3. Background & Evolution

• 28 September 2018: In Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, a 5-judge Constitution Bench (4:1, Justice Indu Malhotra dissenting) held the Sabarimala custom barring women aged 10–50 unconstitutional, violating Article 25 (freedom of religion); Justice D.Y. Chandrachud additionally invoked Article 17 [3][1].
• 14 November 2019: Review Bench, by 3:2, kept review petitions pending and referred larger constitutional questions (on essential religious practices, Art. 25/26 scope) to a larger bench [3].
• 10 February 2020: 9-judge Bench upheld its own power to refer questions of law within a review petition [3].
• 7 April 2026 onward: 9-judge Bench (CJI Surya Kant + Justices B.V. Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, A.G. Masih, R. Mahadevan, Prasanna B. Varale, Joymalya Bagchi) commenced substantive hearing [3].
• Reference also touches Parsi excommunication practices under Articles 25–26, indicating the Bench's ruling will have cross-religion implications [4].

4. Core Static Facts

Item	Detail
Case	Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (Sabarimala Reference)
Original verdict	28 Sept 2018, 4:1 majority
Review outcome	14 Nov 2019 — referred to larger bench (3:2)
Confirmatory order	10 Feb 2020 — 9-judge Bench affirmed referral power
Present Bench size	9 judges
Bench composition	CJI Surya Kant; Justices B.V. Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, A.G. Masih, R. Mahadevan, Prasanna B. Varale, Joymalya Bagchi [3]
Hearing start (current round)	7 April 2026 [2][3]
Hearing duration	16 days, judgment reserved [1][3]
Constitutional provisions in play	Article 25 (freedom of religion), Article 26 (religious denomination's right to manage affairs), Article 17 (abolition of untouchability)
Centre's position	Sabarimala prohibition is sui generis, age-based (10–50 yrs), not time-based; represented by SG Tushar Mehta [2]
Only woman on Bench	Justice B.V. Nagarathna

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Legal / Constitutional

• Central question: does Article 17 (drafted for caste-based untouchability) extend to gender-based temple exclusion, or is it doctrinally restricted to caste [1]?
• Interplay between individual fundamental rights (Art. 25(1)) and group/denominational rights (Art. 26) — the "essential religious practices" test is under fresh scrutiny [4].
• Outcome will also govern Parsi excommunication cases bundled with the reference, widening its constitutional footprint [4].

Social

• Case is a flashpoint for gender equality vs. religious customs; menstrual taboo and notions of "purity/pollution" underpin the original exclusion [2].
• Nagarathna's remark reframes the debate: cyclical selective exclusion is logically inconsistent with treating a person as permanently "impure."

Governance / Federal

• Kerala Devaswom Board and State machinery had to implement (and earlier resisted implementing) the 2018 order — highlights implementation gaps between judicial pronouncement and on-ground administration.

Ethical

• Balances religious autonomy against constitutional morality; Centre argues faith and denominational practice deserve deference, not just autonomy/dignity claims [2].

Historical

• Draws comparison with earlier essential-practices rulings (Shirur Mutt, Durgah Committee) and other gender-temple-entry disputes (Haji Ali Dargah, Shani Shingnapur) — useful comparative set.

6. Recent Developments (last 12–18 months)

• 7 April 2026: 9-judge Bench begins substantive hearing of Sabarimala reference [2][3].
• During hearings, SG Tushar Mehta reiterated Centre's reservations against the 2018 judgment's equating of the temple-entry bar with untouchability [2].
• Justice Nagarathna's oral remarks on Article 17's temporal inconsistency reported prominently, becoming the news hook (per The Hindu, 8 April 2026 print edition) [2].
• Bench reserved judgment after 16 days of hearing (2026) [1][3].
• Parallel consideration of Parsi excommunication practices under Articles 25–26 by the same Bench [4].

7. Prelims Hooks

• Sabarimala original judgment: 28 September 2018, case Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala.
• Majority: 4:1; sole dissent by Justice Indu Malhotra.
• Justice invoking Article 17 in 2018 majority: D.Y. Chandrachud.
• Review petitions referred to larger bench: 14 November 2019, by 3:2 majority.
• 9-judge Bench affirmed its referral power: 10 February 2020.
• Current 9-judge Bench hearing began: 7 April 2026.
• Bench headed by CJI Surya Kant; only woman judge on Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna.
• Solicitor-General representing Centre: Tushar Mehta.
• Centre's argument: Sabarimala bar is sui generis — unique, age-based (women aged 10–50), not time-based.
• Article invoked for "untouchability" argument: Article 17 of the Constitution.
• Articles governing religious freedom at stake: Article 25 (individual) and Article 26 (denominational).
• Hearing on the reference concluded after 16 days; judgment reserved.
• Bundled issue before same Bench: validity of Parsi excommunication practices.
• Sabarimala temple is dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, located in Kerala.

8. Mains Relevance

• GS-II (Polity & Governance): Fundamental Rights — Article 17, Article 25, Article 26; judicial review; essential religious practices doctrine.
• GS-I (Society): Gender and social exclusion; religion and social practices.
• GS-IV (Ethics, optional angle): Constitutional morality vs. religious freedom; individual dignity vs. group rights.
• Possible Mains stems: 1. "Discuss whether Article 17's prohibition of untouchability can be extended beyond caste-based discrimination to gender-based exclusionary religious practices. Illustrate with the Sabarimala reference." (GS-II) 2. "Examine the tension between individual religious freedom under Article 25 and a denomination's right to manage its own affairs under Article 26, in light of recent Supreme Court references." (GS-II) 3. "'Religious customs cannot override constitutional morality.' Critically examine this statement with reference to the Sabarimala case." (GS-IV)

9. Related Topics to Study Next

• Essential Religious Practices Doctrine — core test the Bench must apply to any custom claiming Art. 26 protection.
• Triple Talaq judgment (Shayara Bano case) — parallel case of personal law/religious practice vs. constitutional rights.
• Haji Ali Dargah entry case — comparable gender-temple/mosque access dispute.
• Kerala Devaswom Board — administrative body managing Sabarimala, relevant for federal/state temple administration.
• Doctrine of Constitutional Morality — recurring judicial concept invoked in Sabarimala, Navtej Singh Johar, and Adultery judgments.
• Article 17 and the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 / Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1976 — statutory backbone of caste-untouchability law, useful for contrast.
• Parsi excommunication case — bundled with Sabarimala reference before same 9-judge Bench.

10. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• Confusing the 2018 verdict (which allowed entry) with the ongoing 2026 reference hearing (which is reconsidering the reasoning, not necessarily reversing the outcome yet — judgment reserved, not delivered).
• Assuming Article 17 is only about caste — the entire controversy is about whether its scope is wider than caste; don't answer definitively as "Article 17 = caste only."
• Mixing up review petition (2019) vs. reference to larger bench (2020 confirmation, 2026 hearing) — these are distinct procedural stages.
• Wrongly attributing Nagarathna's remark as the Court's final verdict — it was an oral observation during hearing, not the reserved judgment's ratio.
• Forgetting that the Bench size is 9 judges, not 5 (the original bench) — a common Prelims trap.