Religious Freedom and Gender Discrimination: The Sabarimala Case

The Centre supports restrictions on menstruating women's entry into Kerala's Sabarimala temple, asserting the 2018 judgement wrongly assumes gender superiority. A nine-judge bench assesses religious discrimination and freedom across faiths. Solicitor and Additional Solicitor Generals emphasize traditional beliefs and public morality in this significant legal discussion.

The Centre has reinforced its support for restricting the entry of women of menstruating age into Kerala's Sabarimala temple. This stance challenges the 2018 Supreme Court judgement that was interpreted as assuming a superiority hierarchy between genders.

The matter is currently under examination by a nine-judge Constitution bench, which deliberates on the broader implications of religious discrimination and religious freedom across multiple faiths. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, emphasized to the bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, examples where men also face entry restrictions in certain temples.

At Kerala's Kottankulangara Sree Devi Temple, men participate in the Chamayavilakku festival by dressing as women, illustrating that gender-centric traditions exist for all genders. The discussion hinges on the concept of public morality, as noted by Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, contrasting with prior interpretations of constitutional morality.

(With inputs from agencies.)