4 min readNew DelhiApr 7, 2026 06:21 PM IST
First published on: Apr 7, 2026 at 05:27 PM IST
Supreme Court’s Justice B V Nagarathna on Tuesday said that there cannot be a three day untouchability every month for women and ending on the fourth day. The judge, who is part of a nine-judge bench in the Sabarimala case, was referring to applicability of Article 17 (abolition of untouchability) of Constitution to the case.
“Speaking as a woman I can say there can’t be three day untouchability every month and on the fourth day there is no untouchability. Let us go by the hard realities…. speaking as a woman, Article 17 cannot apply for three days, and on the fourth today, there is no untouchability,” Justice Nagarathna said while referring to the menstrual cycle of women.
The bench is hearing petitions seeking a review of its 2018 judgment lifting age restrictions on the entry of women into the Sabarimala temple in Kerala.
The hearing, which began with Solicitor General Tushar Mehta starting the proceedings on behalf of the Centre, saw Justice Nagarathna pointing out the applicability of Article 17 in the context of Sabarimala case.
Before the judge shared her thoughts, Mehta had taken exception to the 2018 verdict which held that the prohibition of women entry based on menstrual impurity was a form of untouchability.
“One opinion in Sabarimala says that Article 17 applies to women. You are treating women as untouchables, that’s one opinion. I have a very strong exception to it,” SG Mehta said.
He added that, “India is not that patriarchal or gender stereotyped society as the West understands”.
To this, Justice Nagarathna questioned the application of Article 17 in the case.
‘Social ill’
During the hearing, Justice B V Nagarathna observed that if there is a social ill, which is being branded as a religious practice, the court can certainly distinguish between the two.
SG Mehta said that essential practice was a separate issue but if it is a social evil, the answer can be yes.
Justice B V Nagarathna also noted that Article 25 is a balance between what was existing and what has to be done in future.
“What has to be done in the future has been left with the legislature, but the Constitution also tries to preserve what is already existing in Article 25,” she said.
Sabarimala case
The Supreme Court is hearing the final arguments on petitions seeking a review of its 2018 judgment lifting age restrictions on the entry of women into the Sabarimala temple in Kerala.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant is presiding over the bench, which also includes Justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi.
A nine-judge bench is hearing the Sabarimala case.
On September 28, 2018, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court, by a 4:1 majority, lifted the age restriction on women visitors and struck down as unconstitutional Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules, 1965, which allowed the exclusion of women on the grounds of custom.
’30 per cent law officers at Centre, state must be women’
Calling for concrete institutional reform to address gender imbalance in the legal profession, Supreme Court judge Justice B V Nagarathna said on April 6 that at least 30 per cent of of the law officers in the Central and state governments along with public sector bodies must be women to ensure their sustained participation and visibility in litigation.
“30 per cent of the law officers of the central government and 30 per cent of the law officers of the state government must be women. And 30 per cent of the panel advocates in public sector organisations must be women,” she said, underlining that representation is key to enabling women lawyers to remain in active practice.
Justice B V Nagarathna made the remarks while hearing the final arguments on petitions seeking a review of its 2018 judgment lifting age restrictions on the entry of women into the Sabarimala temple. 
A nine-judge bench is hearing the Sabarimala case.
Share
