The Supreme Court of India is currently deliberating on the constitutionality of its previous ruling regarding women's entry into the Sabarimala temple, located in Kerala. Justice B V Nagarathna raised questions about the notion of temporary untouchability, suggesting that it contradicts the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 17 of the Constitution, which prohibits untouchability. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta expressed strong opposition to the application of the anti-untouchability clause to the temple's customs, arguing that the 2018 decision was incorrectly decided and should be declared a wrong law. The original ruling, issued by a five-judge bench, had lifted age restrictions on women, declaring them unconstitutional. However, the current nine-judge bench is tasked with addressing various constitutional questions arising from petitions seeking a review of this landmark decision. Mehta emphasized that the unique practices of the Sabarimala temple should not be conflated with broader notions of gender equality, asserting that other Ayyappa temples do not impose similar restrictions. The court's ongoing review reflects the complex interplay between religious practices and constitutional rights in India.