Today (on Thursday), in a high-stakes hearing before a Nine-Judge Bench, the Union government told the Supreme Court that the 2018 Sabarimala ruling rests on a flawed premise that places men above women, as it defended restrictions on the entry of women of menstruating age into the temple. The submission adds a sharp constitutional dimension to the ongoing debate on religious freedom and gender equality across places of worship.
Appearing before the Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that religious practices cannot be viewed through a uniform lens of gender discrimination, pointing to instances where men are also excluded or required to follow distinct rituals in certain temples. The Centre maintained that such practices are rooted in faith-specific traditions rather than gender hierarchy. The hearing forms part of a broader batch of petitions examining alleged discrimination in religious spaces, including the long-standing controversy surrounding the Sabarimala Temple. While earlier rulings had opened temple entry to women, the present proceedings revisit foundational questions on the interplay between religious autonomy and constitutional guarantees.
The Centre asserted that the earlier ruling proceeded on an incorrect assumption, stating that it viewed “men as superior and women on a lower pedestal,” thereby mischaracterising the nature of religious practices. It was further argued that public morality, rather than constitutional morality as previously interpreted, should guide such matters.
The Court is currently examining the broader legal issues surrounding religious freedom and equality, with no final determination yet on the validity of the restrictions.
Source PTI
Picture Source :