The Supreme Court of India on April 7, 2026, observed that women cannot be treated as “untouchables” for a few days each month while hearing petitions linked to the entry of menstruating women into the Sabarimala Temple. Justice B.V. Nagarathna made the remarks during ongoing constitutional deliberations, questioning the idea of “temporary untouchability” and emphasising dignity and equality.
The hearings also saw the Union government backing certain restrictions, arguing that the 2018 judgment may have been based on flawed reasoning. The case balancing religious freedom and fundamental rights remains unresolved, with the court continuing its examination of whether such practices meet constitutional standards.
Court Flags ‘Selective Untouchability’
During the hearing, Justice Nagarathna criticised the notion that women could be considered impure for a limited period due to menstruation, stating that such reasoning undermines dignity and equality. She questioned how constitutional protections particularly the abolition of untouchability, could be applied selectively. The bench engaged with arguments from both sides: petitioners emphasised the discriminatory nature of the practice, while opposing counsel highlighted the religious significance and long-standing traditions associated with the shrine.
The Centre, represented by senior law officers, submitted that the 2018 ruling may have misinterpreted the basis of the restriction, suggesting it was not rooted in notions of superiority but in specific religious beliefs. The court’s remarks indicate a continuing effort to reconcile deeply held faith-based practices with constitutional guarantees.
A Long-Running Legal and Social Flashpoint
The Sabarimala issue gained national prominence in 2018 when the Supreme Court allowed women of all ages to enter the temple, striking down a centuries-old prohibition on women between menarche and menopause. The verdict was hailed by many as a milestone for gender equality but also triggered widespread protests in Kerala, with sections of devotees opposing the decision and seeking to preserve tradition linked to the celibate deity worshipped at the shrine.
Multiple review petitions followed, and the matter was eventually referred to a larger bench to examine broader questions about the interplay between religious freedom and fundamental rights. The current hearings form part of this ongoing legal process, reflecting the judiciary’s attempt to address unresolved constitutional questions that extend beyond a single temple.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
The Supreme Court’s observations underscore a fundamental principle: equality cannot be conditional. Traditions and beliefs are integral to cultural identity, but they must evolve when they conflict with dignity and inclusion. A society that seeks progress must ensure that no individual is excluded or stigmatised on the basis of natural biological processes.
At the same time, constructive dialogue between communities, religious leaders and institutions remains crucial to bridge divides and avoid polarisation. Upholding both faith and fundamental rights requires empathy, reason and a commitment to justice. As India continues to navigate this complex debate, how can we collectively ensure that respect for tradition does not come at the cost of equality and human dignity?
Also Read: India Raises Fertilizer Subsidy for Kharif Season as Global Price Shocks Deepen Import Dependence
Justice BV Nagarathna, the lone woman judge on the nine-judge Constitution Bench hearing the #Sabarimala matter, on Tuesday observed that Article 17 cannot apply to women for three days and then cease on the fourth, raising concerns over menstrual-based exclusion from temples.… pic.twitter.com/BO8hydY9Md
— IndiaToday (@IndiaToday) April 7, 2026
