Pedestals and Patriarchy: Solicitor General Defends Sabarimala Customs as "Alien" to Indian Ethos

Mehta fundamentally challenged the narrative that Indian traditions are rooted in systemic gender bias, urging the Lords of the Supreme Court not to introduce Western notions of patriarchy into the domestic discourse. He maintained that Indian society has historically worshipped women, citing the presence of female deities and the fact that figures ranging from the President and Prime Minister to Supreme Court judges bow before these lady deities. Contending that there was never a historical concept of gender stereotypes in the country, the Solicitor General characterized the recent development of jurisprudence—which views every constitutional provision through a gendered lens—as a departure from the original intent of non-discrimination laws.

The Solicitor General sought to distinguish between past legal battles against discrimination and the current challenge to Sabarimala’s customs. He highlighted that earlier laws and judgments mandating open temple entry were specifically designed to tackle caste-based discrimination and the "unfortunate" era where a particular part of Hindus was denied the right to worship. According to Mehta, these measures were era-specific provisions aimed at abolishing untouchability and "section within a section" barriers, having nothing to do with gender. He took serious objection to an observation in the 2018 Sabarimala judgment which equated the exclusion of women to a form of untouchability, arguing that India is not as patriarchal as the West understands.

This line of reasoning prompted a sharp intervention from Justice V Nagarathna, the sole woman on the nine-judge Bench. Speaking from her perspective as a woman, Justice Nagarathna challenged the fluidity of discrimination, stating that one cannot have three days of untouchability every month for a menstruating woman only for it to vanish on the fourth day. She insisted that the court must go by "hard realities" and questioned how Article 17, which forbids untouchability, could be applied selectively based on a biological cycle.

In response, SG Mehta asserted that the Sabarimala case is a sui generis matter involving a specific religious denomination rather than a violation of individual dignity or "bodily integrity." He argued that while Lord Ayyappa temples worldwide are open to all women, this specific temple’s practices must be respected as tenets of faith. Drawing parallels to covering one's head at a Gurudwara or the Ajmer Sharif Dargah, Mehta contended that such requirements are not an assault on autonomy or dignity but a necessary respect for religious belief. He concluded that the issue is not about restricting freedom, but about preserving the unique denominational practices that define the sanctity of the institution.