Supreme Court Questions Use Of Article 17 In Sabarimala

Why in the News ?

A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court is hearing the Sabarimala case, questioning whether Article 17 (untouchability) applies to menstrual restrictions. The debate revisits issues of religious freedom, gender equality, and limits of judicial intervention in faith practices, drawing parallels with environmental jurisprudence where courts balance regulatory oversight with constitutional rights.

Key Observations by Supreme Court:

●  The Court indicated that Article 17 may not be suitable to test restrictions on entry of menstruating women.

●  Justice B.V. Nagarathna highlighted that temporary exclusion cannot equate to caste-based untouchability, rejecting any ex post facto or retrospective application of constitutional provisions.

●  The Bench noted that untouchability has a specific historical context tied to caste discrimination, similar to how the Vanashakti judgment established specific contexts for environmental clearances.

●  Questioned whether extending Article 17 to such practices is constitutionally sustainable, much like debates over ex-post or post facto environmental clearances.

●  The case revisits the 2018 Sabarimala judgment, which had broadened interpretation of untouchability.

Centre’s Arguments and Legal Issues

●  The Union government argued that the issue relates to religious faith and denominational rights, invoking principles of environmental democracy where stakeholders have rights in decision-making processes.

●  The Sabarimala temple is protected under Article 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs), analogous to how the Forest Conservation Act protects forest areas under regulatory frameworks.

●  Maintained that restrictions are not discriminatory but linked to the nature of the deity and tradition, applying the precautionary principle to preserve religious sanctity.

●  Opposed the “essential religious practices” doctrine, arguing courts lack expertise in theology, similar to concerns about judicial overreach in interpreting EIA notification requirements or coastal regulation zone restrictions.

●  Suggested that reforms, if needed, should come through legislation, not judicial intervention, avoiding ex post judicial determinations.

Key Constitutional Provisions and Debate: ●  Article 17: abolishes untouchability, primarily aimed at caste-based discrimination. ●  Article 25: guarantees freedom of religion to individuals. ●  Article 26: grants religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs, similar to how environmental clearance processes grant regulatory autonomy within legal frameworks. ●  Key conflict: gender equality vs religious freedom, reflecting broader constitutional tensions seen in environmental jurisprudence between development and conservation, where the polluter pays principle balances economic and ecological interests. ●  Debate: scope of judicial review in religious practices and limits of constitutional interpretation, avoiding retrospective environmental clearances-type scenarios where regulations are applied retroactively.