The Supreme Court on Tuesday raised critical questions over religious restrictions at the Sabarimala temple, particularly the rationale behind barring women of a certain age group. During the ongoing hearing, the court asked how the mere act of touching a deity could render it impure, highlighting concerns over exclusion based on birth and gender.

A nine-judge Constitution bench is currently examining the broader legal and constitutional principles tied to the Sabarimala dispute, making it one of the most closely watched cases in recent India News Update cycles.

Bench Questions Traditions

The bench questioned whether constitutional morality should override practices that deny individuals the right to worship. It asked whether the Constitution should intervene when devotees are prevented from offering prayers solely due to their gender or biological factors.

The judges also sought clarity on how religious customs align with fundamental rights, particularly equality and non-discrimination.

Temple’s Legal Stand

Representing the Sabarimala temple, advocate V. Giri defended the restriction, stating that temple rituals are deeply rooted in the character of the presiding deity. He argued that Lord Ayyappa is considered a ‘Naishtika Brahmachari’ (eternal celibate), and therefore, the temple’s practices are designed to preserve that religious belief.

According to the counsel, any deviation from established customs would contradict the core tenets of the faith.

Background of Dispute

The Sabarimala issue has remained a significant public interest story for decades. In 1991, the Kerala High Court upheld a ban on women aged 10 to 50 entering the temple, citing tradition.

However, in a landmark 2018 judgment, the Supreme Court lifted the ban, allowing women of all age groups to enter. The ruling triggered widespread protests and multiple review petitions, leading to the current constitutional bench hearing.

Multiple Cases Clubbed

The court is not only examining the Sabarimala case but also hearing around 66 related matters concerning religious freedoms and practices across faiths. These include issues where entry restrictions exist in various temples and places of worship.

Sources indicated that the outcome may set a broader precedent for how courts interpret the balance between religious autonomy and fundamental rights.

Government’s Position

During earlier hearings that began on April 7, the Centre opposed unrestricted entry, arguing that similar gender-based restrictions exist in several religious institutions. It maintained that courts should respect long-standing traditions unless they clearly violate constitutional principles.

Officials suggested that religious diversity in India requires a nuanced approach rather than uniform judicial intervention.

What Lies Ahead

The Constitution bench is expected to deliver its verdict soon, possibly as early as Wednesday. The judgment is likely to have far-reaching implications on religious practices, gender rights, and constitutional interpretation.

Legal experts believe the ruling could redefine how courts handle faith-based customs in the future, making it a key development in national and international news discourse.

As the hearing concludes, the Supreme Court’s observations on the Sabarimala issue remain central to debates on equality, religious freedom, and evolving social norms in India.

Supreme Court questions Sabarimala women entry ban, examines religious practices and constitutional rights in a major India News Update.

Madhya Pradesh High Court has taken a stern stand against the alleged expulsion of disabled students from private schools in Jabalpur. The court made it clear that any form of discrimination against children is unacceptable and violates fundamental rights.

The division bench led by Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva ordered an immediate stay on the removal of such students and sought a detailed report from the District Education Officer (DEO).

Schools Under Scanner

The case involves allegations against Wisdom Valley School and GD Goenka School in Jabalpur. According to the petition, these institutions had reportedly asked special needs students to leave, triggering public concern.

Following complaints, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed, prompting judicial intervention. The court treated the matter with urgency, considering its wider implications for inclusive education.

Hearing and Orders

During Monday’s hearing, the court directed authorities to ensure that no disabled child is denied education. The DEO has been instructed to submit a comprehensive report covering all schools in Jabalpur that enrol children with disabilities.

The next hearing has been scheduled for April 29, where the court is expected to review compliance and further action.

Legal Framework Ignored

The petition highlighted gaps in the implementation of existing laws. Despite clear provisions under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and the Right to Education Act, 2009, several schools have allegedly failed to comply.

These laws mandate inclusive education and require schools to provide necessary support, including trained special educators for differently-abled students.

Lack of Special Educators

One of the key concerns raised was the absence of “special educators” in schools. As per the petitioner, many institutions continue to operate without trained professionals equipped to handle children with special needs.

Officials indicated that this gap reflects weak enforcement rather than a lack of policy. The court has now sought clarity on how many schools are complying with these norms.

Rights Violation Highlighted

Advocate Shivendra Pandey, representing the petitioner, argued that forcing disabled students out of schools amounts to a direct violation of their fundamental rights.

The court acknowledged the seriousness of the issue and intervened promptly, signalling zero tolerance towards discriminatory practices in the education system.

Impact on Education

This Public Interest Story has broader implications for inclusive education across the state. The High Court’s intervention is expected to put pressure on private institutions to adhere strictly to legal mandates.

Education experts believe the order could strengthen enforcement mechanisms and improve accountability among school administrations. It also sends a strong message that equal access to education cannot be compromised.

What Lies Ahead

With the next hearing scheduled later this month, authorities are expected to compile detailed data on disabled students and facilities available in schools. The report will likely influence future directions in policy enforcement.

The controversy surrounding the marriage of Monalisa Bhosle, who gained attention during the Maha Kumbh, has taken a serious legal turn. An investigation by the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST) has revealed that Monalisa was a minor at the time of her marriage. Following this, a case has been registered against her husband, Furman Khan from Baghpat, under the POCSO Act, putting him at risk of arrest.

According to the commission’s findings, the marriage took place on March 11, 2026, in Kerala. However, official records from Maheshwar in Madhya Pradesh indicate that Monalisa’s date of birth is December 30, 2009. Based on this, she was approximately 16 years and 2 months old at the time of the marriage, contradicting earlier claims of her being an adult.

The investigation team, led by NCST Chairman Antar Singh Arya, examined documents across Kerala and Madhya Pradesh. A key discrepancy emerged between the birth certificate submitted during marriage registration in Kerala and the records maintained at a local health center in Maheshwar. The panel termed this inconsistency a serious irregularity.

Acting on the commission’s recommendations, an FIR has been registered at Maheshwar police station against Furman Khan under multiple charges, including abduction. Police officials have launched a detailed probe into the case, including possible involvement of a larger network.

The case has also sparked political and social debate. Advocate Pratham Dwivedi, who filed the complaint, has alleged a “Love Jihad” angle and questioned the role of certain political figures and organizations in facilitating the marriage. However, these claims have not yet been officially verified.

Meanwhile, film director Sanoj Mishra, who was earlier accused by Monalisa, has called the revelations a vindication of his stance. He stated that his intention was only to bring out the truth.

Authorities in both Kerala and Madhya Pradesh are continuing their investigation, and further developments are expected. The case has brought attention to serious concerns such as child marriage, document manipulation, and potential legal violations.

Sabarimala row: SC asserts judicial review over religious practices

In the ongoing Sabarimala row, the Supreme Court and Centre differ on courts’ role in assessing religious practices and alleged discrimination

Hearing Continues in SC

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday continued hearing the long-standing Sabarimala row, focusing on whether courts can examine religious practices and label them as superstition. The proceedings, before a nine-judge Constitution bench, saw sharp exchanges between the Centre and the judiciary on the scope of judicial review.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that secular courts lack the expertise to determine what constitutes superstition in matters of faith. However, the bench maintained that constitutional courts retain the authority to examine such practices, especially where fundamental rights are involved.

Govt vs Court Stand

Presenting the Centre’s position, Mehta said religious practices vary widely across India’s diverse communities and should not be judged by courts using a uniform standard. He cautioned that labelling practices as superstition could lead to unintended consequences in a plural society.

The bench, however, pushed back. Justice Amanullah observed that courts have the power of judicial review and cannot be excluded entirely from examining religious practices. “The final determination cannot rest solely with the legislature,” the court noted during the exchange.

Debate on Discrimination

A key issue in the Sabarimala row remains alleged discrimination against women. The bench repeatedly underlined that constitutional guarantees of equality cannot be ignored.

Justice B. V. Nagarathna questioned whether denying entry to women on the basis of menstruation could be equated with untouchability, which is abolished under Article 17 of the Constitution.

The government countered that the Sabarimala tradition cannot be equated with caste-based untouchability and argued that not all religious restrictions violate fundamental rights.

Essential Religious Practice

The hearing also revisited the doctrine of “Essential Religious Practice” (ERP), which determines whether a practice qualifies for constitutional protection.

Mehta argued that courts should refrain from deciding what is essential to a religion, as this would require interpreting scriptures and beliefs—tasks beyond judicial competence.

The bench acknowledged the complexity but indicated that courts may still examine practices if they conflict with public order, morality, or health.

Background of Case

The Sabarimala row dates back decades, centred on the Sabarimala Temple in Kerala, where women aged 10 to 50 were traditionally barred from entry.

In 2018, the Supreme Court of India, in a 4:1 majority verdict, allowed entry of women of all ages, calling the ban unconstitutional. The ruling triggered widespread protests across Kerala.

Subsequently, over 50 review petitions were filed, leading to the current hearings before a larger bench examining broader constitutional questions.

Wider Constitutional Questions

The present proceedings extend beyond Sabarimala and include issues such as women’s entry into mosques, Parsi fire temples, and practices in other religions.

The bench is examining how Articles 25 and 26—guaranteeing religious freedom—interact with Articles 14, 15, and 17, which ensure equality and prohibit discrimination.

Judges indicated that while religious autonomy is protected, it cannot override constitutional morality in cases of clear discrimination.

What Lies Ahead

The hearings are scheduled to continue until April 22, with different sets of petitioners presenting arguments in phases. A final ruling is expected to clarify the balance between religious freedom and fundamental rights.

The outcome of the Sabarimala row is likely to have far-reaching implications for similar cases across India, shaping how courts interpret faith-based practices in the context of constitutional values.

As the debate unfolds, the case remains a significant public interest story and a key India News Update, closely tracked across legal and policy circles.

A men's rights group in Indore plans a symbolic 'Putra Hanta' Holika Dahan featuring the faces of 11 women accused of child murder, reigniting discussions about vigilante justice and legal due process.

In a controversial pre-Holi development, a men's rights organization in Indore has announced a symbolic 'Putra hanta' (son-killer) Holika Dahan scheduled for March 2, featuring the effigies of 11 women accused in high-profile child murder cases across India . The event, planned by the Indore-based group Paurush, places Bengaluru AI CEO Suchana Seth at the center of the effigy, alongside ten other accused mothers from various states .

The 'Putra Hanta' Concept: Mythological Twist with Modern Accusations

The organization plans to burn the effigy at 4 PM on March 2 at the Mahalakshmi Nagar Mela Ground. Drawing from the mythological story of Hiranyakashipu and Holika, where the demon king's sister perished in fire while trying to kill devotee Prahlad, this symbolic version reverses the narrative to target accused mothers .

According to Paurush president Advocate Ashok Dashora, the effigy will prominently feature Suchana Seth's face at the center. Seth, a Bengaluru-based AI startup CEO, is currently on trial for the alleged murder of her four-year-old son in Goa in January 2024 .

"The central face in the effigy will be that of Suchana Seth," Dashora stated, alleging that she had refused to allow her son to meet his father despite court directions . Seth's estranged husband, Venkataraman, is an Indonesian national of Indian origin.

The Horrific Cases Behind the Effigy

The organization has compiled a list of 11 accused women from across India, with two already sentenced to death by lower courts while others face ongoing trials .

The accused women featured include:

- Suchana Seth (Bengaluru/Goa): Accused of killing her four-year-old son in a Goa hotel, allegedly dismembering the body and packing remains in a suitcase 

- Seema, Muskan, Priyanka, Durgavati: From Uttar Pradesh in various child murder cases

- Bharti and Sharanya: From Tamil Nadu; notably, Sharanya was recently convicted by a Kerala court for throwing her one-and-a-half-year-old child into the sea 

- Sanju: From Rajasthan

- Jyoti Rathore: From Gwalior

- Poonam: From Haryana

- Sunita Sharma: From Gujarat

In Seth's case, police allege she gave her son an overdose of cough syrup and smothered him before attempting to transport the body in a trolley bag from Goa to Bengaluru . The case, which completed two years in January 2026, has seen slow trial progress with only two witnesses examined so far .

Organization's Rationale: Social Awareness or Sensationalism?

Milind Agarwal, a member of Paurush, defended the event as an attempt to expose "harmful social attitudes" and draw attention to cases involving accused mothers .

"We are doing this for social awakening and to highlight family issues," Agarwal said, urging families affected by legal disputes, particularly those involving child custody and visitation, to participate in the programme .

The organization also used the platform to criticize existing child custody laws, claiming that some fathers receive only three hours per month to meet their children, with several unable to see their children for five to seven years due to legal disputes .

Paurush, active in Indore since 2011 and formally registered in 2018, claims to provide counseling and free legal assistance to families affected by dowry cases, domestic violence disputes, maintenance claims, and child custody matters .

Legal Context: High Court Precedent Raises Questions

This is not the organization's first attempt at such symbolic burning. During Dussehra last year, Paurush had proposed burning the effigy of Sonam Raghuwanshi, a woman accused of murder. However, Raghuwanshi's mother approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which stayed the event .

The High Court had observed that such acts are "not acceptable in a democratic society" and emphasized the importance of due process and legal principles, noting that actions should not be allowed until guilt is established by a court of law .

This legal precedent raises questions about the proposed 'Putra hanta' Holika, particularly since several of the women featured, including Suchana Seth, are still undergoing trial and have not been finally convicted .

The Broader Debate: Vigilante Justice vs. Expression

The event has drawn attention ahead of Holi celebrations, with the sensitive theme likely to attract both support and criticism. While the organization frames it as a social awareness initiative, critics may view it as undermining the presumption of innocence—a fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence.

Legal experts point out that in Seth's case, she has denied murder, claiming the child "died suddenly" and blaming circumstances surrounding her estranged marriage . The trial continues, with key witnesses including the investigating officer and autopsy doctor yet to testify .

What Happens Next?

As March 2 approaches, all eyes are on whether the Madhya Pradesh High Court's previous observations will impact this year's event or if the 'Putra hanta' Holika will proceed as planned. The organization remains firm in its commitment, having already prepared the effigy and decorated the venue at Mahalakshmi Nagar Mela Ground .

For now, Indore awaits a Holika Dahan that promises to be anything but traditional—one that places accused mothers, rather than mythological demons, at the center of the fire.