Barring women of menstrual age from Sabarimala a 'taboo'? Depends on individual choice, says Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that whether barring women of menstrual age from entering the Sabarimala temple amounts to a “taboo” or not is ultimately a matter of individual choice and conscience.

It also said that if the people, through their elected representatives, collectively decide the practice requires social reform, the court would likely accept such reform.

A nine-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, which is examining issues of gender discrimination at religious places including Sabarimala and the scope of religious freedoms across faiths, made the remark during the hearing.

The bench, also comprising Justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi, was hearing multiple petitions on the issue.

Senior advocate Vijay Hansaria, representing some parties, submitted that the exclusion of women in Sabarimala is primarily based on menstrual age. He gave an example of a 10-year-old girl visiting the temple with her family, saying the practice treats menstruation as a taboo.

Justice Nagarathna responded that whether it is considered a taboo or not depends on individual perception. “If you consider it a taboo then it is a taboo and if you don’t consider it a taboo (then it is not). The question is how you view it,” she observed.

The judge added that a devotee and a non-devotee may view the practice differently, and one should ultimately be guided by their own conscience.

Hansaria asserted that as a devotee, his conscience did not treat menstruation as a stigma. The arguments also touched upon the interplay between social reform laws and religious practices.

The bench noted that courts would be extremely reluctant to interfere if the people, through their elected representatives, collectively push for social reform on such issues.

“If the people of this country, through their elected representatives, raise a common voice that this issue requires social reforms, probably the court will accept it as a social reform. But if it is against the wish and will of the people… maybe the court will interfere,” the bench remarked.

The hearing is significant as it examines the balance between essential religious practices under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution and the state’s power to bring in social welfare legislation.