Girls can’t be seen as ‘untouchables’ for 3 days a month: Justice Nagarathna in Sabarimala case

Girls can’t be handled as ‘untouchables’ selectively for 3 days a month, the Supreme Courtroom noticed on Tuesday (April 7, 2026).

Justice B.V. Nagarathna’s remarks got here in opposition to the backdrop of submissions referring to the erstwhile prohibition on menstruating ladies, barring them from entry into the Sabarimala temple. A 2018 judgment by the Supreme Courtroom had lifted the centuries’ previous prohibition on entry to the famed Kerala shrine by ladies within the years between menarche and menopause. The courtroom had stated the prohibition lowered freedom of faith to a “lifeless letter” and was a smear on the person dignity of ladies.

“Talking as a lady, I can say there can’t be untouchability practised for 3 days each month, and no untouchability on the fourth day. Allow us to go by arduous realities. Talking as a lady, Article 17 (abolition of untouchability) can’t apply for 3 days and on the fourth day there isn’t any untouchability,” Justice Nagarathna emphasised whereas addressing the Union authorities, represented by Solicitor Normal Tushar Mehta.

SC likened Sabarimala prohibition to untouchability

The Centre expressed sturdy reservations in opposition to the 2018 Sabarimala judgment evaluating the bar on ladies’s entry into the temple to the apply of untouchability.

The comparability of the temple prohibition to the apply of untouchability had been made by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud (now retired), in his separate opinion which fashioned a part of the 2018 Sabarimala majority judgment. Justice Chandrachud had termed the social exclusion of ladies, based mostly on menstrual standing, a “type of untouchability,” saying that notions of “purity and air pollution” stigmatise people. To exclude ladies was derogatory to an equal citizenship, he had noticed in his opinion.

“India has at all times handled ladies not solely equally however on a better pedestal. We’re uniquely the one tradition which bow right down to ladies deities. However there are a number of latest judgments which accuse us of patriarchy, gender stereotyping… it was by no means there. We worship girls. From the President of India to the judges of the Supreme Courtroom, we bow down earlier than our girl deities… India shouldn’t be as patriarchal or gender-stereotyped because the West understands,” Mr. Mehta submitted on Tuesday (April 7, 2026).

‘Respect denominational practices’

Mr. Mehta stated the prohibition was not for 3 or 4 days, however was for an age group, including that the prohibition was sui generis (distinctive) to the Sabarimala shrine. Different Lord Ayyappa temples, globally, have been accessible to ladies of all ages, he stated.

“There are denominational practices which we have to respect. All the things shouldn’t be right down to human dignity and particular person autonomy… It is usually about respecting the religion and tenets of a faith, not all the pieces is in regards to the taking away of dignity or bodily autonomy… Basic rights can’t be islands,” Mr. Mehta stated.

The choice of a specific spiritual denomination to manage the entry of a bit of society to a selected spiritual establishment should be protected as a denominational proper, the Centre stated. Courts may very properly intervene to strike a stability between civil rights and non secular denominational rights if a blanket ban was imposed on entry in opposition to a whole class of people in all spiritual establishments.

‘Man’s celibacy can’t be girl’s burden’

In his opinion eight years in the past, Justice Chandrachud had written that treating ladies as the youngsters of a lesser God because of their pure organic attributes was to blink on the Structure.

Justice Chandrachud had dismissed the argument that the prohibition was in step with the type of the deity and the vow of celibacy by followers.

“Such a declare imposes the burden of a person’s celibacy on a lady and constructs her as a trigger for deviation from celibacy. That is then employed to disclaim entry to areas to which ladies are equally entitled,” Justice Chandrachud had rationalised.