Justice BV Nagarathna questioned whether menstruation being termed a taboo is an objective fact or subjective perception, observing that such views depend on belief systems and that religious understanding should be based on a devotee’s perspective rather than an outsider’s interpretation.
Justice BV Nagarathna, responding to the argument, questioned whether menstruation being described as a taboo is an objective social fact or merely a subjective perception shaped by belief systems. She indicated that such classifications may vary depending on individual perspective, noting that what one group considers a taboo may not be viewed the same way by another. She further emphasized that religious understanding should depend on the devotee’s perspective rather than that of an outsider.
Responding to the submission of Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, Justice Nagarathna questioned whether the classification of menstruation as a taboo was a matter of objective fact or subjective perception.
“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”.
On Day 14 of the Sabarimala Reference proceedings, the Supreme Court of India continued its examination of broader constitutional questions surrounding religious practices, with a specific discussion on whether menstruation is being treated as a taboo in the context of restrictions on women’s entry into the Sabarimala Temple.
The hearing took place before a 9-judge Constitution Bench, where Justice BV Nagarathna engaged in a pointed exchange on how societal perceptions of menstruation influence arguments surrounding exclusionary religious practices.
Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria submitted that the exclusion of women from Sabarimala was rooted in societal notions that consider menstruation a stigma or taboo.
Hansaria told court,
“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,”
Chief Justice Surya Kant also indicated that the Court was examining whether the restriction in question constituted an essential religious practice or whether it could be subject to constitutional scrutiny as a matter of reform. In response, Hansaria argued that the Court must also consider whether social reform was required in such practices.
The observations were made in the ongoing reference proceedings arising from the Sabarimala litigation, where the Court is reconsidering broader constitutional questions on the intersection of religious freedom and fundamental rights.
In earlier hearings, the Bench had emphasised that courts must be cautious in intervening in religious matters, noting the deep-rooted connection between religion and Indian society. Justice Nagarathna had observed during arguments concerning the Dawoodi Bohra community’s practice of excommunication:
“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?”
Similar concerns have also arisen in other matters, including challenges to practices within the Parsi Zoroastrian community. In one such case, the Court examined whether exclusion of women for interfaith marriage could be justified as a religious practice or whether it amounted to a man-made social restriction.
The Sabarimala review proceedings have thus evolved into a wider constitutional reference involving multiple religious communities and practices. The Bench is now examining issues beyond the original dispute, including questions relating to gender equality, religious autonomy, and the scope of judicial review in matters of faith.
The Court is revisiting its landmark September 2018 judgment, where a 5-judge Constitution Bench had by a 4:1 majority struck down the traditional ban on women aged 10 to 50 years entering the Sabarimala temple. The earlier ruling held that devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a separate religious denomination and therefore cannot claim protection under Article 26 of the Constitution, while also finding the exclusion of women violative of Article 25.
Following widespread review petitions, a larger Bench in 2019 kept the matter pending and referred broader constitutional questions to a 9-judge Bench. The present proceedings are part of that reference.
Case Title: Kantaru Rajeevaru v. Indian Young Lawyers Association
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES