Back
Centre Argues Sabarimala Verdict Assumes Male Superiority in Landmark Reference Hearing
In a pivotal development in one of India's most contentious constitutional debates, the has sharply critiqued the 's 2018 Sabarimala judgment, arguing it rests on a flawed presumption of male superiority and female inferiority. , representing the Centre, concluded his submissions before a nine-judge Constitution Bench on , emphasizing that temple entry restrictions are rooted in faith, not gender patriarchy. He cited numerous Hindu temples where men face exclusions or unique devotional mandates—such as dressing in women's attire—challenging the narrative of systemic gender discrimination. The Bench, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, observed that devotees must adhere to a temple's (traditional practices) or refrain from entry, while cautioning against denominational exclusivity that could fracture Hinduism's inclusive ethos. This hearing in underscores the delicate balance between religious autonomy and equality rights, with implications rippling across faiths.
Background: From PIL to Nine-Judge Reference
The Sabarimala saga traces back to , when the filed a public interest litigation challenging . This rule upheld the age-old custom barring women aged 10-50—deemed menstruating—from the Sabarimala Temple, dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, portrayed as a (celibate deity). In , a five-judge Bench ruled 4:1 in favor of entry for all women, holding the restriction violative of . Justice Indu Malhotra dissented, defending it as an essential religious practice.
The verdict sparked massive protests in Kerala, with over 50 review petitions filed by devotees, asserting that Ayyappa followers form a distinct denomination entitled to protections for managing religious affairs. In , another five-judge Bench (3:2) declined an immediate review but referred broader questions to a larger Bench: the scope of , interplay between Articles 25 and 26, and judicial limits in theological matters. The reference expanded beyond Sabarimala to encompass Muslim women's mosque entry, Parsi fire temple rights, and Dawoodi Bohra excommunication.
After years of delay, the nine-judge Bench—comprising CJI Surya Kant, Justices B.V. Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B. Varale, R. Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi—resumed hearings, clarifying it addresses , not a direct Sabarimala review.
Centre's Submissions: Beyond Gender, Into Faith Territories
Solicitor General Mehta's arguments dismantled the 2018 verdict's foundation. “Sabarimala judgment proceeds on the assumption that men are superior…and women on a lower pedestal,” he asserted, rejecting Western-style patriarchy lenses on Indian traditions. Instead, he portrayed Hinduism as elevating the feminine divine, with Goddesses as supreme.
Mehta furnished a litany of examples from his written submissions:
- Attukal Temple (Kerala): Men barred; hosts world's largest women-only Pongal gathering.
- Chakkulathukavu Temple (Kerala): Male priests ritually wash feet of fasting women devotees during Naari Puja , where only women enter.
-
Kottankulangara Sree Devi Temple (Kerala):
Men shave, visit beauty parlors, don sarees with family women's help, and parade as devotees of the Mother Goddess—
"an ultimate display of faith."
- Pushkar Brahma Temple (Rajasthan): Married men prohibited.
- Others: Bhagawati Maa Temple (Kanyakumari), Mata Temple (Muzaffarpur), Kamrup Kamakhya Temple (Assam).
“It is not male-centric or female-centric religious belief... In the present case, it happens to be woman-centric,” Mehta submitted. He urged testing entry rights against devotees' collective Article 25 claims, arguing secular courts cannot scrutinize deity attributes like Ayyappa's celibacy or faith rationality. reinforced a "three-tier mechanism": individual rights (Art.25(1)), regulation (25(2)), institutional/denominational (Art.26), cautioning uniform "essential practices" tests ill-suit India's plurality.
, for review petitioners, echoed: Visitors must embrace the , open even to non-Hindus believing in Ayyappa. He warned 's social reform power overriding would uniquely burden Hindu institutions, as they rely less on state funds if exclusive.
Probes: Inclusivity, Morality, and Constitutional Teeth
The Bench actively interrogated. Justice Nagarathna invoked : ‘There Can't Be Untouchability For 3 Days A Month’ , questioning menstrual exclusions, and stressed openness: “If you say: ‘it is my practice... only my section, my denomination must attend my temple and none else’, that is not good for Hinduism.” She posited denominational restrictions might breach Art.26's morality clause.
CJI Surya Kant rebutted Vaidyanathan: “These arguments probably will not survive... directly in the teeth of the language of Article 25(2)(b).” He noted Art.26's subjection to public order, morality, health, with Art.17 embodying morality. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah queried external manifestations impacting others: “The moment your external manifestation affects the rights of others, then how can it be protected?”
The Court affirmed: Follow the rituals and practices of a temple or stay out. Justice Aravind Kumar warned exclusivity divides society. Nataraj clarified judicial review's "limited scope" on essentials.
Core Constitutional Conundrums
At stake: Resolving Article 25's internal faith vs. external manifestation, individual vs. group rights, and reformist override. The 2018 Bench rejected Ayyappa devotees as a denomination; now, the larger Bench weighs if Sabarimala is . Diversity challenges uniform tests—Hinduism lacks central dogma. Broader reference links to hijab/mosque cases, testing if "group rights" shield practices against equality.
Legal Analysis: Navigating Faith and Equality
Legally, the Centre's patriarchy rebuttal reframes Sabarimala from Art.14/15 discrimination to Art.25/26 protection. Yet, precedents like (essential practices) and Sabarimala itself demand practices be integral, not superstitious. Justices' morality focus invokes (Chandrachud's coinage), prioritizing dignity over rote custom. If overruling 2018, it could insulate traditions unless proven immoral/unhealthy; else, bolster reformist interventions. Critically, explicitly allows laws opening temples "to all classes," potentially trumping Art.26— a hierarchy CJI highlighted.
This tests judicial restraint: Courts examine faith existence but not rationality, per SG. Expanded scope signals holistic jurisprudence, avoiding piecemeal rulings.
Impacts on Legal Practice and Justice System
For constitutional lawyers, this sets paradigms for religion PILs—emphasizing devotee rights, deity attributes. Temple boards gain ammunition for autonomy if denominational status upheld, curbing state overreach (e.g., Kerala temple control). Gender advocates face setbacks if faith trumps, but inclusivity remarks bolster Art.14 claims. Multi-faith: Could liberalize mosque/Parsi access or protect excommunications. State funding debates intensify—exclusive denominations forgo public money? Long-term, refines "essential practices," reducing judicial theology incursions in plural India.
Looking Ahead
Hearings resume . Verdict, potentially overruling 2018, promises to recalibrate religious freedom's contours, harmonizing equality with India's syncretic heritage. As Justice Nagarathna noted, exclusivity harms Hinduism; yet tradition endures. Legal professionals watch keenly—this could redefine secularism's practice.
