Indian Government Defends Sabarmala Temple Restrictions in Supreme Court

New Delhi, April 10: The Indian government reiterated in the Supreme Court that the restrictions at the Sabarmala Temple are not based on gender discrimination. The Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta, argued that many temples across the country have practices rooted in faith and tradition that are either male-centric or female-centric.

Presenting before a nine-judge constitutional bench led by Chief Justice of India, D.Y. Chandrachud, Mehta stated that the 2018 ruling allowing women of all ages to enter the Sabarmala Temple was based on a misconception that men are superior and women are inferior.

Mehta provided examples of temples where men are not permitted to enter. He highlighted a temple in Pushkar, the only Brahma temple in the country, where married men are not allowed inside. In Kerala, there is a temple where men dress like women to enter, indicating that this is not merely a question of male or female-centric beliefs, but in this case, it is focused on women.

The bench included Justices B.V. Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Arvind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B. Varale, R. Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi.

The Supreme Court is currently examining significant constitutional questions regarding the relationship between religious freedom and fundamental rights. During the hearing, Justice Nagarathna emphasized the importance of inclusivity in religious spaces, asserting that everyone should have the freedom to enter any temple or monastery. She clarified that her comments were separate from the Sabarmala dispute.

Justice Arvind Kumar warned that traditions imposing such restrictions could lead to societal divisions.

Senior advocate C.S. Vaidyanathan, representing the case, responded by stating that certain sect-specific temples, particularly private ones, have historically restricted access to specific groups. He argued that if such institutions do not rely on government funding or public access, they may not necessarily violate constitutional principles.

He posed the question, “Is this against constitutional restrictions? If it does not contradict public order, morality, or health, what are the actual consequences?”

The government has consistently stated that there is a need to reconsider the 2018 Sabarmala ruling. They argue that the restrictions in question stem from the unique nature of the deity and religious traditions, rather than patriarchy or gender discrimination.

Mehta cited examples like the Attukal Temple in Kerala, where men are not allowed during certain rituals, and the Chakkulathukavu Temple, where male priests wash the feet of female devotees. He also referenced the Kottankulangara Temple, where men wear women’s clothing to express their devotion.

The next hearing on the Sabarmala case is scheduled for April 14.