New Delhi, April 9 – The Union government reiterated before the Supreme Court on Thursday that the restrictions at the Sabarimala temple are not based on gender discrimination, arguing that several temples across the country impose practices that are either male- or female-centric, based on faith and tradition.
Appearing before a nine-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta argued that the 2018 verdict allowing entry of women of all age groups into the Sabarimala temple was based on the incorrect assumption that men were treated as superior, and women were placed on a lower pedestal.
"I have cited examples of temples where men are not allowed… There are temples where male priests are required to wash the feet of female devotees. There is the Pushkar temple, the only Brahma temple in the country, where married men are not allowed. There is also a temple in Kerala where men dress as women. So, it is not a question of male-centric or female-centric beliefs. In this case, it is a woman-centric issue," SG Mehta told the Bench, which also included Justices B.V. Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B. Varale, R. Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi.
The apex court is currently examining broader constitutional questions relating to the interplay between religious freedom and fundamental rights.
During the hearing, Justice Nagarathna stressed the importance of inclusivity in religious spaces, observing that "everyone must have access to every temple and matha", while clarifying that her remarks were independent of the Sabarimala controversy.
"If you say that only my denomination must attend my temple, that is not good for Hinduism," she remarked.
Justice Aravind Kumar cautioned that such exclusionary practices could lead to societal divisions.
Senior advocate C.S. Vaidyanathan, appearing in the matter, countered that denominational temples – particularly private ones – have historically restricted entry to specific groups. He argued that such institutions, if not reliant on public funds or general footfall, may not necessarily violate constitutional principles.
"The question is whether it is contrary to the constitutional prohibition. If it is not contrary to public order, morality, and health, what would be the realistic consequences," he submitted.
The Centre has consistently maintained that the 2018 Sabarimala judgment warrants reconsideration, contending that the restriction in question is rooted in the unique nature of the deity and religious practices, rather than notions of patriarchy or gender bias.
In his written submissions, SG Mehta cited examples such as the Attukal Temple in Kerala, where men are not allowed entry during certain rituals, and the Chakkulathukavu temple, where male priests perform rituals washing the feet of female devotees. He also referred to the Kottankulangara temple, where men dress in women’s attire as an expression of faith.
