SG Tushar Mehta told the Supreme Court that India respects women and rejected the idea of patriarchy in the Sabarimala case. The Centre argued temple entry rules are based on religious faith, not gender discrimination, as the court continues hearing the matter.
In a significant hearing before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that Indian society has traditionally respected women and even placed them on a higher pedestal, rejecting the idea that India is a patriarchal society.
The submission was made before a nine-judge Constitution Bench that is currently examining important constitutional and legal questions related to religious practices. The outcome of this case is expected to have a direct impact on the long-standing issue of whether women of menstruating age should be allowed entry into the Sabarimala temple.
During the hearing, SG Mehta strongly questioned the increasing reliance on the concept of “patriarchy” in arguments supporting women’s entry into Sabarimala. According to him, such ideas are not rooted in Indian traditions or societal values.
“India, my Lords, has always not only treated ladies equally, but they have always been treated at a higher pedestal. There are several judgments of the recent past where there is a concept of ‘patriarchal society’ or there is some ‘gender stereotypes’ etc. They were never there. In Indian society, we worship ladies. The President of India to the Prime Minister of India to the judges of the Supreme Court, we bow down before our ladies deities. So let us not introduce those concepts of ‘patriarchy’ and ‘gender stereotypes’. There has never been (such notions in India),”
he said.
He further clarified that earlier legal reforms and court rulings addressing discrimination in temple entry were focused on caste-based exclusion, not gender discrimination.
“(In the past) we unfortunately were living in a society where, one particular part of Hindus was not permitted to be part of the broader Hindu denomination by denying them right to worship. This had nothing to do with gender. In the last decade or so, there is a jurisprudence which is developed, where every constitutional provision will have to be seen from the lens of gender … There is no discrimination. (Under) Article 14 (of Constitution)- all genders are equal. Article 15 – irrespective of sex, all fundamental rights are given. This (earlier laws against discrimination) was that era’s specific provision, that if it is a public temple or a public religious institution, it should be open for all. We must do away with untouchability, or section within a section etc,”
he said.
Reiterating his point, Mehta once again emphasized the cultural respect for women in India and opposed the introduction of Western concepts into Indian legal and social interpretation.
“The President of India to the Prime Minister of India to the judges of the Supreme Court, we bow down before our ladies deities. So let us not introduce those concepts of ‘patriarchy’ and ‘gender stereotypes’.”
He also raised objections to the Supreme Court’s 2018 judgment on Sabarimala, particularly its observation that the restriction on women’s entry was similar to untouchability.
“India is not that patriarchal or a gender-stereotyped society as the West understands. Sometimes, that is the problem,”
he added.
During the exchange, Justice B V Nagarathna, the only woman judge on the Bench, shared her perspective on the comparison with untouchability, highlighting practical realities faced by women.
“Speaking as a woman, I can say – there can’t be three-days of untouchability (for a menstruating woman) every month and then on the fourth day (when a period ends), there is no untouchability. Let us go by the hard realities. Speaking as a woman, Article 17 (which forbids untouchability) cannot apply for three days and on the fourth day, there is no untouchability.”
Responding to this, SG Mehta maintained that the Sabarimala issue is not about dignity or bodily autonomy, but about respecting religious beliefs and denominational practices.
“I have no dispute with that. Sabarimala I will defend in my own different way. Sabarimala doesn’t mean four days (women can’t enter). Sabarimala means a particular age group (of women can’t enter) … Lord Ayappan temples are open throughout the world for all sections of ladies, except one temple which is a sui generis case … There can be denominational practices we have to respect. Everything is not related to human dignity or individual body freedom. If I have to go to Gurudwara, if I have to cover my head, I cannot say, ‘where is my dignity, you are taking my dignity, or my right of choice.’ It’s not taking away autonomy; it is respecting the tenets, the faith and belief of that religion. When we go to Ajmer Sharif (Dargah), we do cover our heads; when we go to a Gurudwara, we do cover our heads and nobody says that this is bodily integrity,”
he said.
In its written submissions, the Central government also supported the restriction, stating that the issue is rooted in religious faith and traditions rather than discrimination.
The Centre argued that the restriction on entry of women aged 10–50 is linked to the nature of the deity, Lord Ayyappa, who is considered a “Naishtika Brahmachari” (eternal celibate). According to the government, allowing entry would fundamentally change the character of the temple and its practices.
It further emphasized that courts should avoid evaluating religious practices based on modern standards like rationality or scientific reasoning, as such an approach would interfere with religious autonomy.
The Centre also cautioned that judges are not equipped to interpret religious doctrines or theological questions, and that such matters should remain within the domain of the faith itself.
The hearing in this crucial matter is still ongoing, and the final judgment is expected to play a major role in shaping the balance between constitutional rights and religious freedom in India.
Click Here to Read More On Women’s Entry & Religious
