Sabarimala Reference | Justice Nagarathna On Banning Menstruating Women: A Devotee Views It As Tradition, Not Taboo

The Supreme Court on Day 14 of the Sabarimala Reference hearing engaged in a discussion on menstruation being considered as a taboo in connection with the bar on women from entering the Sabarimala Temple.

Justice BV Nagarathna questioned the interpretation of menstruation being considered a taboo as Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria told a 9-jugde bench that society considers menstruation as a taboo or a stigma.

"In the context of Sabarimala Temple, the whole basis of debarring women is because of menstrual age. As a 10 year old girl, I am going with my family to the temple after doing entire vratham etc. Regarding menstruation, it is a taboo. Justice Mahadevan has said in a recent judgement of Jaya Thakur, which says society is responsible to remove this taboo or stigma or social cultural restrictions on the menstruating women," Hansaria told court.

Justice Nagarathna interjected the submission by saying, "If you say it is a taboo, it is a taboo. If you don’t consider it a taboo, it is not a taboo. It is on how you view it. It depends on how a devotee would view it and not how a non-devotee would view it".

CJI Surya Kant also told Hansaria that the court was considering whether this amounted toa religious practise or not. In response, Hansaria said that court had to consider if a social reform was required in the case or not.

Recently, the bench hearing the Sabarimala reference case in which seven larger questions on the scope of religious freedoms are also being considered, had said that it cannot question the relationship which Indians have with religion.

As it heard arguments by Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, who was representing the Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community, challenging the power of the Dai (religious head) of the Dawoodi Bohra community to excommunicate persons, Justice BV Nagarathna had observed, "Once everyone starts questioning certain religious practices or matters of religion before a constitutional court, then what happens to this civilization, where religion is so intimately connected with Indian society? There will be hundreds of petitions questioning this right, that right, closure of the temple, right?"

On similar lines, Supreme Court has questioned if the practice of excommunicating Parsi Zoroastrian women for entering interfaith marriages is even a religious matter. Senior Advocate Darius Khambata, making submissions on behalf of a Parsi Zoroastrian woman who married a Hindu man and faced exclusion from the Parsi community due to her interfaith marriage, had argued before the CJI Surya Kant led bench that Zoroastrianism is a very forward-looking religion, and this practice is actually man-made, which is why it’s difficult to find any religious texts that support this claim.

The Sabarimala review petitions is now one of the most important constitutional debates, balancing gender equality with religious freedom. Instead of immediately revising the 2018 verdict, the Supreme Court has chosen to examine wider questions affecting multiple faiths, making the case a landmark in constitutional and religious jurisprudence. Court has now expanded the issue beyond Sabarimala to include Muslim women’s entry into mosques, Parsi women’s religious rights and Dawoodi Bohra excommunication practices along with other similar issues.

After five years of the review petitions being taken up last, the Supreme Court of India in March took up the batch of petitions challenging its September 2018 decision wherein a 5-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court by a 4:1 majority had ruled that the traditional ban on women aged 10–50 years entering the Sabarimala temple was unconstitutional.Notably, more than 50 review petitions have filed by devotees, religious groups, and organisations arguing that the Court interfered with essential religious practices as Lord Ayyappa devotees form a separate religious denomination.

The issue dates back to 2006, when Indian Young Lawyers Association had filed a Writ Petition challenging the validity of Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 (1965 Rules) and sought a direction to permit female devotees between the ages of 10 to 50 years to enter the Sabarimala temple without any restrictions.

By a majority of 4:1, the Supreme Court allowed the Writ Petition on 28 September 2018 holding that the devotees of Lord Ayyappa did not constitute a separate religious denomination and therefore cannot claim the benefit of Article 26 of the Constitution of India. Supreme Court also concluded that exclusion of women between the ages of 10 to 50 years from entry into the temple is violative of Article 25 of the Constitution of India. Further, Rule 3 (b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 was declared as violative of Article 25 (1) to the Constitution of India and ultra vires Section 3 of Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965.

On 14 November 2019, a five judge Constitution Bench delivered a crucial order by a 3:2 Majority wherein it kept the Review petitions pending without overturning the 2018 judgment and referred larger constitutional questions to a 9-judge bench. The 9-judge bench led by former CJI SA Bobde held that no matter is beyond the jurisdiction of a superior Court of record unless it is expressly shown to be so, under the provisions of the Constitution and held that the review petitions were maintainable.

Case Title: KANTARU RAJEEVARU Vs INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION THR.ITS GENERAL SECRETARY MS. BHAKTI PASRIJA AND ORS.

Bench: CJI Surya Kant, Justices B V Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, AG Masih, R Mahadevan, Prasanna B Varale and Joymalya Bagchi

Hearing Date: May 12, 2026