Women In South Avoid Temples During Menstruation As Matter Of Belief : Lawyer Tells Supreme Court In Sabarimala Reference

Senior Advocate MR Venkatesh, appearing for Atman Trust, on Thursday told the nine-judge Bench of the Supreme Court that the practice of women voluntarily refraining from entering temples or puja rooms during menstruation is rooted in discipline and belief, and not in notions of discrimination.Addressing the Constitution Bench hearing the reference arising out of the Sabarimala judgment, Venkatesh submitted that across South India, women traditionally observe self-imposed restrictions during menstruation as part of religious discipline.He stated:"All temples in South India, primarily when women undergo a monthly biological process, voluntarily by their own discipline they do not enter temples. This is a non-written rule. Even in the house, they do not enter the puja room. This is my belief. I can't give a scientific explanation, but when science ends, belief begins. This is practised as a discipline by all ladies or most ladies in the South."Ambedkar Distinguished Untouchability From Temporary DefilementReading from Dr. B.R. Ambedkar's speeches in the Constituent Assembly, Venkatesh submitted that the framers clearly distinguished between untouchability and temporary ritual impurity.He argued that this distinction was overlooked in the Sabarimala judgment.According to him, Ambedkar recognized that temporary defilement arising from biological processes was conceptually different from the social evil of untouchability, and that conflating the two would distort constitutional intent.He also referred to Rule 6 of the Travancore-Cochin Temple Entry Rules which says that persons under pollution arising out of birth and death in their families are barred from temple entry. He stated that this was a ritualistic practice emanating from the denomination's right to manage its own affairs. It cannot be regarded as discriminatory.Religious Practice And Denomination Cannot Be Precisely DefinedVenkatesh further argued that the expressions "religious practice" under Article 25(2) and "religious denomination" under Article 26(b) are inherently indeterminate and incapable of rigid definition.Tracing the historical roots of the term "denomination," he submitted that the concept has foreign origins and limitations when applied to the Indian constitutional context.According to him, the word can be traced to the Latin term "denominatious," which later evolved in Christian traditions and was adopted into constitutional frameworks such as that of Ireland. He contended that these foreign conceptual origins make the term ill-suited for India's diverse religious traditions.The Senior Counsel emphasized that Articles 25(2)(a) and 25(2)(b) are sui generis provisions crafted specifically for the Indian constitutional scheme, without international precedent.He cautioned that an overly expansive interpretation of these provisions could undermine religious autonomy. If only denominational temples are recognized as having rights, he argued, non-denominational temples risk being reduced to the status of purely public spaces.He remarked:"If there is a definition of denominational temples and a certain class falls within it, what happens to non-denominational temples? Do they have no right? All this becomes a sort of public place equated to a bus stand where anybody can enter and exit."Secular Regulation Must Not Invade The Core Of ReligionVenkatesh submitted that the controlling inquiry under Article 25(2)(a) should be whether a law is predominantly secular in character, with only incidental application to religious settings. Any intervention that intrudes into the core of religious practice, he argued, would be unconstitutional.He contended that Article 25(2)(a) permits regulation only of secular aspects such as political, economic, or financial matters, and does not authorize interference with core religious practices. Any law that abridges essential religious practices under the guise of regulation, he submitted, would violate Article 13(2) of the Constitution.He further argued that courts have inverted the constitutional framework by bringing religious practices within the ambit of secular regulation through the doctrine of essential religious practices.Temple Entry And Management Are Distinct Constitutional DomainsOn the relationship between Articles 25 and 26, Venkatesh submitted that the Constitution draws a clear distinction between the right of entry into temples and the right to manage their affairs.He argued that Article 25(2)(b) enables temples to be thrown open to all classes and sections of Hindus, ensuring access without discrimination. However, Article 26(b) protects the autonomy of religious denominations in managing their internal affairs.Drawing an analogy, he stated that while members of the public may enter the Supreme Court premises, they cannot claim the right to administer the institution.He explained:"Several people come to watch Supreme Court proceedings. It is like a temple being thrown open. But the Registrar...

Women In South Avoid Temples During Menstruation As Matter Of Belief : Lawyer Tells Supreme Court In Sabarimala Reference

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

He argued that secular regulations cannot invade core beliefs.

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

Women In South Avoid Temples During Menstruation As Matter Of Belief : Lawyer Tells Supreme Court In Sabarimala Reference

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

He argued that secular regulations cannot invade core beliefs.

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers