Sabarimala Case

What is the Issue?

At the Sabarimala Ayyappan Temple:
Entry of women of menstruating age (10–50 years) is restricted

Is this:
A matter of religious belief?
or
A violation of fundamental rights?

Constitutional Provisions

1. Article 25
Freedom of Religion
Individuals have the:
Right to practice their religion

2. Article 26
Rights of religious denominations
Freedom to manage their own religious affairs

3. Article 14
Right to Equality

4. Article 17
Abolition of Untouchability

2018 Supreme Court Judgment

5-judge bench
4 : 1 majority

Judgment:
Denial of entry to women:
Violates equality
Violation of Article 14
Linked to Article 17 (Untouchability)

2019 Judgment

5-judge bench
3 : 2

Stated:
Discrimination against women is a larger constitutional issue
Therefore:
Should be examined by a 9-judge constitutional bench

Current Case (News Summary)

Central Government’s argument:
The Sabarimala issue is based on religious belief
Falls under religious autonomy (Article 26)

Therefore:
Courts should not interfere
Beyond the scope of Judicial Review

Judge’s View (Important)

Justice Nagarathna stated:

Women:
Cannot be treated as “untouchable”
No discrimination based on menstruation

Concept Clarity

The conflict in this case:

Religious Freedom (Article 25, 26)
VS
Equality (Article 14) + Untouchability (Article 17)

This is the core issue

Important Points for TNPSC Exam

Article 14 – Equality
Article 17 – Abolition of Untouchability
Article 25 & 26 – Religious Freedom
2018 Sabarimala Judgment (4:1)
2019 – Referred to 9-judge bench

Summary

Sabarimala Case: Religious rights vs Women’s equality rights
Final judgment is pending before a larger constitutional bench