'Only Society That Worships Women': Centre Says India Not Patriarchal As Per West In Sabarimala Hearing

Last Updated:April 07, 2026, 18:13 IST

The Centre, however, backed the restriction on women's entry into Kerala's famous Sabarimala temple citing religious faith should be beyond judicial review

The Centre on Tuesday told the Supreme Court that Indian society is the only one in the world that “worships women", while explaining how the country is “not patriarchal and gender stereotyped as the West understands".

The central government, however, backed the restriction on women’s entry into Kerala’s famous Sabarimala temple citing religious faith should be beyond judicial review. 

“India has always held women on a higher pedestal, we are the only society that worships women," solicitor general Tushar Mehta said during the hearing on Sabarimala temple restrictions before a nine-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court. 

Representing the Union government, Mehta argued that Indian society must not be viewed through the “western lenses" of patriarchy or gender stereotyping. He said India has a long-standing history of revering women and placing them on a “higher pedestal".

The proceedings, presided over by Chief Justice Surya Kant, seek to resolve the contentious issue if the judiciary can legally mandate the inclusion of women in specific religious spaces, such as the Sabarimala temple in Kerala. Mehta, however, stressed religious faith and denominational practices should remain fundamentally beyond the scope of judicial review.

The Centre’s stance marks a significant challenge to the 2018 verdict that lifted the ban on women of menstruating age in the Sabarimala temple. Mehta said the previous judgment was “wrongly decided" and deserves to be declared “wrong law".

WHAT DID CENTRE SAY ON WOMEN IN INDIAN SOCIETY?

Mehta pushed back against modern sociological critiques applied to Indian traditions. “India is not that patriarchal or gender stereotyped that the West understands," he submitted, adding that the country’s cultural ethos reflects deep respect for women in both spiritual and public life.

He pointed to the prominence of women in the highest offices of the state as evidence of this unique cultural position.

“From the President of India, to the Prime Minister of India, to the judges of the Supreme Court, we bow down for our leading ladies, so let us not introduce those concepts of patriarchy or gender stereotypes," he argued.

WHAT DID THE CENTRE SAY ON RELIGIOUS FAITH?

The government’s argument, however, is centred on how religious faith and denominational autonomy should be immune from judicial scrutiny, provided they do not violate public order, morality, or health.

Mehta argued that the SC should “expressly decline a model of review" that tests religious practices against secular standards such as rationality, modernity, or scientific defensibility. He said for the judiciary to substitute its own philosophy for religious self-understanding will constitute an overreach.

“The Constitution protects religious freedom precisely because the protected field contains convictions, rituals, disciplines, and forms of worship that may not satisfy secular standards of reason, utility or majoritarian taste," he told the bench.

He said the judiciary lacks the “expertise or scholarship" required to interpret sacred religious texts and scriptures across India’s pluralistic society. He, however, clarified that this immunity is not absolute and gave the example of a practice such as human sacrifice saying if this were claimed as an essential religious rite, the court could rightly reject it.

WHAT DID CENTRE SAY ABOUT 2018 VERDICT?

Mehta launched a sharp critique of the doctrine of “constitutional morality", which was used in the 2018 verdict to strike down the temple’s entry restrictions.

He described the term as “judicially evolved, vague and indeterminate", noting its absence from the actual text of the Constitution. He argued that expanding the constitutional term “morality" to include this subjective concept amounts to “not only judicial overreach but an amendment of the Constitution".

The solicitor general also invoked the role of the “founding mothers" of the Constitution – such as Rajkumari Amrit Kaur and Dr Hansa Mehta – to argue that the primary intent behind religious freedom clauses was secularism, not gender equality.

“Let us call these women the founding mothers of the Constitution," Justice Nagarathna observed.

He argued that the phrase “all persons are equally entitled" in Article 25 was introduced by the framers to address communal harmony following the Partition, ensuring that no religion claimed superior rights based on numerical strength.

“It is a manifestation of secularism; it has nothing to do with gender," he said, adding that gender equality is sufficiently addressed through articles 14 and 15 and should not be read into Article 25.

News india 'Only Society That Worships Women': Centre Says India Not Patriarchal As Per West In Sabarimala Hearing

Read More