The Supreme Court's constitutional bench has begun hearing the case of women's entry into the Sabrimala temple

A nine-judge constitutional bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday began hearing the case of religious faith versus fundamental rights and women's entry into the Sabarimala temple. During the hearing before the constitutional bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, the central government said in its affidavit that the ban on the entry of menstruating women into the Sabarimala temple is a matter of religious faith and autonomy.
The central government has asked the court to uphold the ban and said that in such cases, the scope of judicial review should be limited. During today's hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the central government, said that India has always given women not only equality but also a higher status on many occasions. He further said that although terms like patriarchy and gender stereotypes have been used in some recent judgments, these concepts are not rooted in Indian civilization. He said that such ideas have come from outside and do not conform to India's cultural traditions.
Mehta said that India is perhaps the only society in the world where women are worshiped as deities. From the President and Prime Minister to the judges of the Supreme Court, everyone bows down to women deities, which shows respect for women.
The bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant includes Justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Iqbal DB, Aravind Kumar, AJ Mishra, PB Varale, AR Mahadev, and Jai Malhotra Bagchi.
The Supreme Court had earlier said that the nine-judge constitutional bench would complete the hearing by April 22. Setting a timeline for the hearing, the court said that the petitioners would argue from April 7 to 9. The parties would present their arguments from April 14 to 16. The petitioners would again present their arguments on April 21, followed by the amicus curiae on April 22.
It is worth mentioning that on September 28, 2018, the Supreme Court delivered its verdict with a 4-1 majority. The court said that discriminatory treatment of women has been going on for a long time. Women are not inferior to men. On the one hand, we consider women as goddesses, and on the other hand, we discriminate against them. The court said that biological and physical reasons cannot restrict women's freedom of religious faith. At that time, four judges, including then-Chief Justice Dipak Misra, said that this violates the rights given under Article 25 of the Constitution.
Justice Indu Malhotra delivered a separate verdict, differing from the other four judges. She said that the court should not interfere in matters of religious faith. She said that the court's interference in worship (prayers) is not appropriate. The method of worship should be decided by the temple itself. The authority of the temple should be respected. She said that a complete review of religious rituals cannot be done on the basis of the right to equality. It is up to the worshippers, not the court, to decide the procedure of one's religion. Justice Malhotra said that this decision would also affect other temples.