Centre Backs Women's Entry Ban in Sabarimala, Tells Supreme Court

By: WE Staff | Tuesday, 7 April 2026

• The Government of India backed the ban on the entry of women during their menstruation cycle into the Sabarimala temple
• The case was filed by Tushar Mehta for the Centre and the stance of the government was put forward
• The Centre maintained that any scientific concerns must be resolved by the legislature

The Indian government supported the ban on women of menstruating age from entering the Sabarimala Temple to the Supreme Court of India, saying that this is a matter of religion and both religious faith and faith-based autonomy are beyond the scope of judicial review.

Tushar Mehta, appearing on behalf of the Centre, made these arguments to the nine-judge Constitution bench chaired by Surya Kant. If any religious practice is shown to be unscientific, the appropriate remedy would be through the legislature, not through the courts, Tushar Mehta said.

The Solicitor General argued that all religious practices should be respected regardless of denomination. Not all religious practices are susceptible to individual dignity or personal choice. Practices associated with places of worship do not necessarily constitute a violation of rights.

Tushar also stated that courts should be prohibited from evaluating religious practices according to rationality, modernity, scientific validity or constitutional morality.

He argued that using these methods for evaluating religious practices substitutes the judicial interpretation for the self-understanding of people within religious faiths.

He stated that religious freedoms are protected by the Constitution, even when the belief systems or practices do not conform to majoritarian or secular standards.

According to the governing body, the term "constitutional morality" doesn't exist in the Constitution as such and is evidence that it has been developed through jurisprudence.

Adding a new definition for morality to include constitutional individual rights may be interpreted to be gross overreach by way of the judicial system.

The government also expressed concern to the Supreme Court to avoid making interpretation of religious documents, as there is no qualification for the Court to interpret documents that pertain to religion and given that India is a multi-faith society, comprised of a number of different religions and denominations, and all of which have their own specific beliefs and practices that, when considered as a whole, create a strongly held belief system that needs to be treated with great deference.

At the beginning of the hearing, the Supreme Court told attorneys representing the various parties involved to respect the timelines established by the Court, and explained that there are other matters before the Court that are time-sensitive.

As part of that order, the Court has also directed the larger bench to consider more broadly the entry of women into places of worship throughout religions, including mosques, dargahs and Parsi fire temples, because such considerations encompass both the principles of freedom of religion and equality as applied to women's right to environmental equality in religious worship.