Sabarimala temple case: Centre backs curbs on women’s entry, says 2018 verdict assumed 'men superior'

NEW DELHI: The Centre on Thursday supported restrictions on the entry of women of menstruating age into Kerala’s Sabarimala temple, arguing before the Supreme Court that the 2018 verdict lifting the ban was based on an assumption of men being superior to women.A nine-judge Constitution bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, is currently hearing a batch of petitions concerning the entry of women into places of worship and the broader scope of religious freedom across faiths. Appearing for the Centre, solicitor general Tushar Mehta submitted that religious practices cannot be viewed solely through a gender lens, citing examples where men are also barred or required to follow specific customs in certain temples.Referring to traditions linked to the deity, Mehta argued that the Sabarimala practice is rooted in faith rather than discrimination. He pointed to Kerala’s Kottankulangara Sree Devi Temple, where men dress as women during the Chamayavilakku festival, underscoring the diversity of religious customs.“It is not a question of male-centric or female-centric beliefs. In this case, it happens to be women-centric,” Mehta told the bench, which includes Justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi.Additional solicitor general K M Nataraj argued that “public morality,” rather than “constitutional morality” as interpreted earlier, should guide the court’s approach.The matter traces back to the Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling, which, by a 4:1 majority, struck down the ban on entry of women aged 10 to 50 at the Sabarimala Ayyappa temple, declaring the practice unconstitutional.In 2019, a subsequent five-judge bench led by former Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi referred broader questions on gender discrimination in places of worship across religions to a larger bench, noting that such issues require deeper examination beyond individual cases. The ongoing hearings are expected to determine how constitutional principles of equality intersect with the right to practise religion.