The long-standing Sabarimala temple case has re-entered the spotlight as the Supreme Court of India continues hearings on petitions concerning the women entry ban and broader questions of religious rights. The Centre has backed restrictions on the entry of women of menstruating age, intensifying the ongoing religious freedom debate and raising critical questions about constitutional morality India.
Appearing before a nine-judge Constitution bench led by Surya Kant, the government argued that the 2018 ruling, which allowed women’s entry, was based on an assumption that framed gender equality in a way that may not align with religious traditions. This submission has added a new dimension to the Supreme Court hearing, which is expected to examine the intersection of faith and fundamental rights.
Centre defends women entry ban in Sabarimala temple case
Representing the government, Tushar Mehta argued that religious practices cannot be judged solely through the lens of gender equality. He indicated that certain customs across religions impose restrictions or obligations on both men and women, suggesting that the women entry ban in the Sabarimala Temple should be viewed within its unique spiritual context.
He further explained, in indirect terms, that the practice linked to Lord Ayyappa was rooted in faith and tradition rather than discrimination. The submission emphasized that the Sabarimala temple case must be understood within the broader framework of religious customs rather than a singular focus on gender.
Religious freedom debate widens across faiths
The ongoing Supreme Court hearing is not limited to the Sabarimala issue alone. It also addresses broader concerns related to the religious freedom debate, including how different faiths regulate entry and participation in places of worship.
The Centre cited examples such as the Kottankulangara Sree Devi Temple, where men follow specific customs, to highlight the diversity of religious practices. Legal experts in constitutional law suggest that such examples are being used to argue that religious traditions often transcend simple binaries of equality and discrimination.
Constitutional morality India versus public morality
Another key argument presented during the Sabarimala temple case relates to the distinction between “constitutional morality” and “public morality.” K M Nataraj indicated that courts should consider societal values and traditions while adjudicating such matters.
Experts in legal theory note that this debate lies at the heart of the case. While constitutional morality emphasizes equality and individual rights, public morality reflects prevailing social and cultural norms. The Supreme Court hearing is expected to weigh these competing principles carefully.
Background of the women entry ban verdict
The Sabarimala temple case originates from the landmark 2018 judgment, where a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India struck down the women entry ban for those aged between 10 and 50, declaring it unconstitutional.
In 2019, a bench led by Ranjan Gogoi referred broader issues concerning gender discrimination in places of worship to a larger bench. This led to the current Supreme Court hearing, which is examining the issue from a wider constitutional perspective.
Expert analysis on Sabarimala temple case
Legal scholars argue that the outcome of the Sabarimala temple case could set a precedent for similar disputes across religions. Experts in constitutional law suggest that the court’s interpretation will shape how rights to equality are balanced with the freedom to practice religion.
They also emphasize that the judgment could have long-term implications for judicial intervention in religious matters, making the ongoing religious freedom debate one of the most significant constitutional questions in recent years.