In a significant development regarding the Sabarimala temple's gender-based entry restrictions, Supreme Court Judge BV Nagarathna expressed her strong opinion, stating that a woman cannot be treated as "untouchable" for three days each month, only to cease being considered untouchable on the fourth day. Her remarks were made during a hearing by a nine-judge bench on petitions related to the exclusion of women from religious places, with a focus on the Sabarimala temple in Kerala. The case has ignited a broader debate on the scope of religious freedom and gender discrimination in India.

Justice Nagarathna’s statement came in response to arguments regarding the constitutionality of restricting women in the age group of 10-50 years from entering the Sabarimala temple. She emphasized that the practice is in direct violation of Article 17 of the Indian Constitution, which abolishes untouchability. In her view, the exclusion of women based on their menstrual cycle is inconsistent with the values of equality and dignity that the Constitution upholds.

The petitioners argue that such restrictions place women in a subordinate position and perpetuate patriarchal practices that violate their dignity. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, disagreed with the assertion that the exclusion of women was a form of untouchability, insisting that the restriction is not related to menstruation but rather is based on age, specifically affecting women in a certain age group.

The debate continues as the Supreme Court evaluates the broader implications of such restrictions on women’s access to places of worship and their rights under the Constitution. In the broader context of religious freedom, this case raises important questions about gender equality, societal norms, and the right to participate fully in religious practices.