New Delhi, April 8 -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday indicated that the concept of "untouchability" may not be an appropriate ground to test the validity of restrictions on the entry of menstruating women into Kerala's Sabarimala temple, with the nine-judge bench observing that Article 17 (prohibiting untouchability) cannot be stretched to cover a practice that operates for a limited period each month. "Untouchability has its own history in India and to get over that Article 17 was made a fundamental right. But Article 17 in the context of Sabarimala.we don't know how it will be argued," the bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, remarked during the hearing. In a pointed observation, Justice BV Nagarathna, the only woman judge on the current bench, added that there cannot be "three days of untouchability every month and on the fourth day no untouchability," underscoring the difficulty in equating menstrual exclusion with the historically entrenched practice of caste-based untouchability. "Speaking as a woman, I can say there cannot be three days of untouchability every month and fourth day.no untouchability...let us go by hard realities. Article 17 can't apply for three days every month and on the fourth day, there is no untouchability," she said. The remarks assume significance because the 2018 Sabarimala judgment expanded the scope of Article 17 beyond its traditional caste-based understanding. The majority, particularly Justice DY Chandrachud, had held that practices rooted in notions of "purity and pollution", including the exclusion of menstruating women, could amount to a form of untouchability prohibited by the Constitution. The nine-judge bench is now examining whether such an expansive reading is constitutionally sustainable. Tuesday marked the first day of substantive hearing before the bench, with Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opening arguments for the Union government. Apart from the CJI and Justice Nagarathna, the bench also comprises justices MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, AG Masih, R Mahadevan, Prasanna B Varale and Joymalya Bagchi The Centre, in its submission filed on Monday, urged the court to uphold the restriction on the entry of women of menstruating age, contending that the issue lies within the domain of religious faith and denominational autonomy and falls outside the scope of judicial review. At the outset, the SG emphasised the complexity and plurality of religions in India, cautioning against a one-size-fits-all constitutional approach. It argued that both Hinduism and Islam contain multiple denominations and sub-denominations, each with distinct practices and identities, and that this internal diversity must inform the interpretation of Articles 25 and 26. The bench also engaged with the scope of judicial review in matters of faith, as the Centre reiterated its opposition to the "essential religious practices" doctrine. Determining what constitutes an essential practice, the government argued, would require courts to interpret religious scriptures and theological principles - an exercise for which they are institutionally ill-equipped. Even if a practice appears irrational or unscientific, it submitted, the remedy lies in legislative reform rather than judicial intervention. One of the chief arguments by the Centre was that the Sabarimala temple constitutes a denominational institution entitled to protection under Article 26. Responding to concerns around gender equality, the Centre maintained that the restriction is not based on notions of discrimination but is intrinsically linked to the nature of the deity worshipped at Sabarimala. On the broader question of judicial intervention, the Centre reiterated its position that courts should refrain from evaluating religious practices on grounds such as rationality, modernity or scientific defensibility....