New Delhi: While hearing petitions for the review of the 2018 Supreme Court judgment on the Sabarimala issue, Justice B.V Nagarathna remarked on Tuesday (April 7) that a woman cannot be treated as “untouchable” for three days in a month and then cease to be considered untouchable on the fourth day, reported LiveLaw.Justice Nagarathna’s remarks came after solicitor general (SG) Tushar Mehta criticised an observation in the 2018 Sabarimala judgment that the exclusion of women in the age group of 10-50 years from the temple was a form of ‘untouchability’, violating Article 17 of the Constitution.“One opinion in Sabarimala says Article 17 applies to women – you are treating them as untouchables – I have a very strong objection to it. India is not that patriarchal or gender stereotyped in the way that the West understands,” Mehta had said.It was at this point, that Justice Nagarathna, the only woman judge in the bench that is hearing the review petitions, expressed her doubts about the application of Article 17 in the case.“Article 17 in the context of Sabarimala, I don’t know how it can be argued. Speaking as a woman, there can’t be a three-day untouchability every month, and on the fourth day, there is no untouchability,” said Justice Nagarathna, reported LiveLaw.On the second day of the hearing on Wednesday (April 8), SG Mehta questioned the use of the concepts of transformative constitutionalism and constitutional morality as standards to adjudicate claims under Article 25 of the Constitution.“Transformative constitutionalism, I have not been able to understand it. I have been hearing this for some years, but in my limited understanding, I couldn’t understand,” said Mehta, reported LiveLaw.In response, Justice Nagarathna maintained that the court was not directly engaging with transformative constitutionalism in the present proceedings, but reiterated that constitutional interpretation has to recognise the dynamic nature of morality in society.In September 2018, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court had ruled that not allowing women in their “menstruating years” into the Sabarimala is ultra vires the constitution, and all women should be allowed to enter the temple.On April 4 this year, the Supreme Court had notified the constitution of the nine-judge bench to hear the long-pending Sabarimala review. The bench will comprise Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, and justices Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh, Ashanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, A.G. Masih, R Mahadevan, Prasanna B. Varale and Joymalya Bagchi.The Union government, in detailed written submissions, has supported the review petitions against the 2018 judgment. It has reasoned that questions of who may enter a place of worship are not facets of gender discrimination but are rooted in religious practice, belief and the specific character of the deity.