Relevance: GS Paper 2 (Indian Constitution, Fundamental Rights, Judiciary) & Essay Paper | Source: The INDian Express / The Hindu

Context: Currently, a massive 9-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court is re-examining the historic 2018 Sabarimala verdict. This hearing has triggered an intense national debate: Is keeping women out of a temple due to their menstrual cycle a form of “untouchability,” or is it simply a unique religious custom?

This case represents the ultimate clash between Individual Rights (gender equality) and Group Rights (religious freedom). 

1. The Core Debate: Biology vs. Untouchability

To understand the current hearings, we must look at the arguments for and against the 2018 verdict:

• The 2018 Verdict (The Old Logic): In 2018, the Supreme Court struck down the ban on women of menstruating age (10 to 50 years) entering the Sabarimala temple. The Court stated that banning women based on the biological process of menstruation is rooted in “notions of impurity.” Therefore, the Court declared it a form of “untouchability,” which is strictly banned under Article 17 of the Constitution.
• The Current Shift (The Rebuttal): During the recent review, Justice B.V. Nagarathna strongly disagreed with this 2018 logic.
  • The Historical Meaning: She argued that Article 17 was created specifically to fight the permanent, historical pain of the Hindu caste system.
  • The Biological Reality: She noted that a woman cannot logically be considered an “untouchable” for just three days a month during her period and then magically regain “touchability” on the fourth day. Therefore, using Article 17 for a temporary biological phase is legally incorrect.
• The Temple’s Defence (A Unique Case): The government argued that Sabarimala is a unique case. Banning women here is not an insult to women’s dignity. Instead, it is strictly because the specific deity (Lord Ayyappa) at this shrine is worshipped as an “Eternal Celibate”. Women are completely free to worship Lord Ayyappa at other temples across India.

2. The Clash of Fundamental Rights

The Sabarimala issue is a direct fight between:

• Article 14 & 15 (Right to Equality): An Individual Right. Women argue that the temple ban discriminates against them purely based on their sex and biology.
• Article 25(1) (Freedom of Religion): An Individual Right. A woman’s fundamental right to freely pray and worship the deity of her choice.
• Article 26 (Freedom to Manage Religious Affairs): A Group Right. The Temple Board argues they are a specific “religious denomination” and have the fundamental right to manage their own internal customs without the state or courts interfering.

3. Propagation vs. Forced Conversion

During these hearings, the bench also cleared up a major confusion regarding Article 25 (Right to Propagate Religion):

• The Clarification: The Supreme Court noted that the Constitution gives you the right to “propagate” (peacefully teach or explain) your religion to others, but it does not give you the right to forcefully convert anyone.
• Historical Proof: Lawmakers like K.M. Munshi and Sardar Patel clearly stated during the drafting of the Constitution that forced or fraudulent conversion is a crime against public order, not a religious right.

One Line Wrap (/Conclusion)

The Supreme Court faces the monumental task of balancing “Constitutional Morality” and gender justice with the deeply held beliefs and ancient autonomy of religious institutions.

“The Sabarimala review petition highlights the complex constitutional clash between an individual’s right to equality and a denomination’s right to manage its religious affairs.” Analyze this statement, highlighting the debate around the interpretation of Article 17 (Untouchability). (15 Marks, 250 Words)

Mains Answer Hint:

• Intro: Mention the 9-judge Constitution Bench reviewing the 2018 Sabarimala verdict. Briefly state the core conflict between individual rights and religious autonomy.
• Body: * The Clash of Rights: Explain how Articles 14, 15, and 25(1) (women’s right to pray/equality) clash directly with Article 26 (Temple’s right to manage its own customs).
  • The Article 17 Debate: Explain the 2018 view (menstrual taboo equals untouchability) versus the current counter-argument (Article 17 is strictly about the historical caste system, not a temporary biological phase).
  • The Temple’s View: Mention the unique nature of the deity (Eternal Celibate).
• Conclusion: Conclude that the Court must clarify the Essential Religious Practices (ERP) Doctrine to create a clear standard for reforming religious customs without destroying the essence of religious freedom in India.