Supreme Court r4f23

Supreme Court to examine ban on women’s entry at Sabarimala The bench also took note of Kerala government's recent stand and termed it as "somersault" saying, "You have filed an affidavit by taking an opposite stand. We will test it also as to whether a can take a somersault or u-turn". 17 10



Comments (27)

 By: Express News Service | New Delhi | Updated: February 13, 2016 4:54 am

Sabarimala: Ayyappa devotees throng at Sannidanam in Sabarimala. PTI Photo

The Supreme Court Friday questioned the practice of banning women from Kerala’s Sabarimala temple, and wondered if man-made customs can prescribe such prohibition when “the God does not discriminate between men and women”. A bench led by Justice Dipak Misra said it would examine the issue of ban on entry of women of menstrual age in the temple on “constitutional parameters”, and adjudge whether this practice was “intricately fundamental” to religious customs and hence cannot be interfered with. “The God does not discriminate between men and women, so why should there be gender discrimination in the premises of the temple,” observed the bench as it quoted from a mythological story about Sati Anusuya, who had turned Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh into children. SHARE THIS ARTICLE

RELATED ARTICLE

    

Haji Ali women entry case: Bombay HC asks stakeholders to submit arguments in two weeks The pilgrims’ progress Allowing women inside Haji Ali: Bombay HC says matter is of belief, awaits Sabarimala verdict Women entry to Sabarimala Temple: Centre to ascertain its stand, says Gowda Sabarimala PIL: Lawyer files complaint with police over ‘death threats’

            

SC questions ban on entry of women in Sabarimala temple Haji Ali women entry case: Bombay HC asks stakeholders to submit arguments in two weeks The pilgrims’ progress Allowing women inside Haji Ali: Bombay HC says matter is of belief, awaits Sabarimala verdict Women entry to Sabarimala Temple: Centre to ascertain its stand, says Gowda Sabarimala PIL: Lawyer files complaint with police over ‘death threats’ SC questions ban on entry of women in Sabarimala temple Haji Ali women entry case: Bombay HC asks stakeholders to submit arguments in two weeks The pilgrims’ progress Allowing women inside Haji Ali: Bombay HC says matter is of belief, awaits Sabarimala verdict Women entry to Sabarimala Temple: Centre to ascertain its stand, says Gowda Sabarimala PIL: Lawyer files complaint with police over ‘death threats’ SC questions ban on entry of women in Sabarimala temple

1 2 3 4 5 6

PrevNext “How can you stop the mother from entering the temple?” it asked, adding that neither the Vedas nor Upanishads discriminated on the basis of gender. Senior advocate K K Venugopal, appearing for the Travancore Devaswom Board, sought six weeks for filing evidence, including documents and ancient scriptures, on the issue, and said the practice of prohibiting women of menstrual age in Sabarimala was being followed for centuries. The bench also termed Kerala government’s recent stand a “somersault.” The state government, in its latest affidavit, has said the prohibition of women is a matter of religion and it is dutybound to “protect the right to practice the religion of these devotees”. But in its previous affidavit, it had ed a PIL seeking women’s entry in Sabarimala.

- See more at: http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/sc-toexamine-issue-of-womens-entry-in-sabarimala-temple/#sthash.GzFTriAC.dpuf

2. Ban

on entry to women in Sabarimala: SC orders protection for petitioner IBPS Book PDF - Free IBPS Formulas, and Prepare Tips to Save Time in Examwww.talentsprint.com/Bank Ads by Google



KRISHNADAS RAJAGOPAL COMMENT · PRINT · T

T

inShare14 1

TOPICS judiciary (system of justice) court istration

Access to justice cannot be dented through intimidation, says Bench. Noting that access to justice cannot be dented through intimidation and justice will not fall prey to individual perceptions or whims, the Supreme Court on Monday directed the Delhi Police Commissioner to investigate death threats received by the president of the Indian Young Lawyers’ Association (IYLA) for complaining about gender inequality at the Sabarimala temple by prohibiting entry to women aged between 10 and 50. A three-judge Special Bench led by Justice Dipak Misra made it clear that “access to justice” was not hostage to any person or authority, and only a court could control it within the parameters of the law. Individual perceptions or fancy of what was just had no room in the debate, which would be eventually held in the Supreme Court, on the constitutionality of the restriction imposed on women at the shrine. Security to advocate In a specially convened hearing, the Bench directed the Delhi Police to provide security to advocate Naushad Ahmed Khan, who had received about 500 threatening calls after the Supreme Court questioned the logic of the restriction last week. On finding that an FIR had already been ed, the Bench ordered the police chief to probe and report back to the court. The Bench further made it clear that once a PIL was itted, even the withdrawal of the petitioner was of no consequence and would not deter the court from examining the issue at hand. On January 11, the Bench had taken a swipe at religious customs and temple entry restrictions violating women’s constitutional rights. It had orally observed that no temple or governing body

could bar a woman from entering the famous Sabarimala shrine in Kerala where lakhs of devotees throng annually. “Why can you not let a woman enter? On what basis are you prohibiting women entry? ... What is your logic? Women may or may not want to go [to worship at Sabarimala], but that is her personal choice,” Justice Misra had remarked on January 11. Keywords: Ban on entry to women in Sabarimala

SC questions practice banning entry of women at Sabarimala temple 3.

Dhananjay Mahapatra | TNN | Jan 12, 2016, 01.43 AM IST

RELATED VIDEOS

SC questions ban on women's en...

SC bans heavy commercial vehicles into D...

Assam temple chief denies Rahul was deni...

Sikh man denied entry in Poland club bec...

Malda violence: After BJP, M team deni...

Centre's notification allowing Jallikatt...

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday questioned the legality of Travancore Devaswom Board's decision to ban entry of women between 10 and 50 years into Lord Ayyappa Temple at Sabarimala in Kerala. Taking up a 10-year-old petition filed by women lawyers questioning the decision banning entry of women in the menstruating age into the temple, a bench of Justices Dipak Misra, P C Ghose and N V Ramana asked the Travancore Devaswom Board, which isters the temple, whether the Constitution permitted such a discriminatory practice. READ ALSO: Sabarimala temple to go 'green', pilgrims asked to cooperate Appearing for the board, senior advocate K K Venugopal said since it was a religious practice, neither the courts nor the government could interfere in it. While posting the matter for detailed hearing on February 8, the bench said, "A mutt preventing entry of women into its premises is understandable. But how can a temple, which is a public place, be made out of bounds for citizens on the ground of sex, age or any other criteria."

Appearing for the state, advocate Liz Mathews said there were certain inaccuracies in the earlier affidavit filed by the government and it would like to correct it. Petitioners said the state government was changing its stand. The bench said if the government changed its stand, "it would be at their own peril" and posted the matter for further hearing on February 8. Blog: Why Hindu community should completely open Sabarimala to women The LDF government in 2008 had filed an affidavit ing the PIL filed by women lawyers and said banning entry of women between 10 and 50 years was discriminatory and should be discontinued. Venugopal said the deity was believed to be celibate and in the posture of meditation. It was a religious custom not to allow women in menstruating age to enter the temple as that could disturb the deity, he added. The SC had last month ruled in the case Adi Saiva Sivachariyagal Nala Sangam, "Requirement of constitutional conformity is inbuilt and if a custom or usage is outside the protective umbrella afforded and envisaged by Articles 25 and 26 (right to practice and profess any religion), the law will certainly take its own course. Constitutional legitimacy, naturally, must supersede all religious beliefs or practices."



Shopaholics Online Festival: 15th to 17th MarAxis Bank



New Samsung Galaxy A Series 2016 Edition.Samsung Recommended By Colombia

The previous LDF government had sought appointment of an "appropriate commission consisting of eminent scholars with authentic knowledge in Hinduism and reputed and incorrupt social reformers to submit suggestions and views on the issue".

"All persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the Constitution gives right to worship to everyone equally. Hence, it is not fair to deny a section of women from entering Sabarimala temple and make worship. Those who are physically able to come to Sabarimala are to be permitted to visit the temple and make worship," the state had said in its affidavit.

Top Comment why crossing the line for Hindu religion. why not doing same for others? lets SC fix and make it a constitutional law of... Read Moredmp999

"It would be violation of constitutional rights if women are denied entry to Sabarimala. Sasthavu (the deity) is not an anti-woman deity," the LDF affidavit had said.

The women lawyers had quoted news reports on the practice and challenged the validity of provisions of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules, 1965 giving legality to the ban.

Terming the practice a "socio-religious malady", they expressed surprise that it was perpetuated by Kerala through a statutory board and related to a place of worship partially funded by public money as the "state gave Rs 8 lakh to the temple board per annum".

Sabarimala temple: SC to hear PIL against ban on women’s entry 4.

Earlier this week, the SC bench had questioned the ban on entry of women of menstrual age group in Sabarimala temple, saying it was a public temple and everyone needed to have “the right to access”. 8 6



Comments (1)

 By: Express News Service | New Delhi | Updated: January 16, 2016 4:45 am

Sabarimala: Ayyappa devotees throng at Sannidanam in Sabarimala on Wednesday. PTI Photo (PTI1_6_2016_000222A)

The Supreme Court on Friday said it would go ahead with deciding the constitutionality of the age-old ban on entry of women of menstrual age in Kerala’s Sabarimala temple and may also appoint a senior lawyer as amicus curiae to assist it. “We are going to hear this case. Once a PIL is itted, the matter is only for the court to decide in public interest,” said a bench led by Justice Dipak Misra, as it asked a lawyer, associated with the petition, to not press for withdrawing the PIL. SHARE THIS ARTICLE

RELATED ARTICLE

                 

Supreme Court to examine ban on women’s entry at Sabarimala Sabarimala temple: Kerala government defends ban on women’s entry Allowing women inside Haji Ali: Bombay HC says matter is of belief, awaits Sabarimala verdict Women entry to Sabarimala Temple: Centre to ascertain its stand, says Gowda abarimala PIL: Lawyer files complaint with police over ‘death threats’ SC questions ban on entry of women in Sabarimala temple Supreme Court to examine ban on women’s entry at Sabarimala Sabarimala temple: Kerala government defends ban on women’s entry Allowing women inside Haji Ali: Bombay HC says matter is of belief, awaits Sabarimala verdict Women entry to Sabarimala Temple: Centre to ascertain its stand, says Gowda Sabarimala PIL: Lawyer files complaint with police over ‘death threats’ SC questions ban on entry of women in Sabarimala temple Supreme Court to examine ban on women’s entry at Sabarimala Sabarimala temple: Kerala government defends ban on women’s entry Allowing women inside Haji Ali: Bombay HC says matter is of belief, awaits Sabarimala verdict Women entry to Sabarimala Temple: Centre to ascertain its stand, says Gowda Sabarimala PIL: Lawyer files complaint with police over ‘death threats’ SC questions ban on entry of women in Sabarimala temple

1 2 3 4 5 6

PrevNext

Naushad Ahmed Khan, president of Indian Young Lawyers Association whose women had filed the PIL, mentioned the matter before the bench, expressing his desire to withdraw the plea in the wake of several intimidating calls and death threats allegedly received by him. But the bench told him the PIL of such a nature cannot be withdrawn at this stage. Adding that it may appoint an amicus, the court said it would take up on Monday issues relating to security of Khan, who is also an additional standing counsel for the Delhi government. Earlier this week, the SC bench had questioned the ban on entry of women of menstrual age group in Sabarimala temple, saying it was a public temple and everyone needed to have “the right to access”.

- See more at: http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-newsindia/sabarimala-temple-sc-to-hear-pil-against-ban-on-womensentry/#sthash.YsN3Ov6K.dpuf 5.

RSS favours entry of women into temples

Dalip Singh, NEW DELHI, Mar 12, 2016, DHNS

In a shift from its stand, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) now favours entry of women into temples but wants the “unfair” restriction to go after due consultation with the stakeholders. “Because of some unfair traditions, at certain places, there has been a lack of consensus on the question of temple entry. Wherever such a problem exists, attempts should be made to bring about a change of mind through proper discussion,” said RSS Sarkaryawah Suresh Bhaiyyaji Joshi’s report submitted at the ongoing three-day Akhil Bhartiya Pratinidhi Sabha in Nagaur district of Rajasthan. The RSS also adopted two resolutions – on effective healthcare and easy access to affordable medical services – on the second day of the Nagaur conclave. It is also expected to take a call on change of RSS uniform, replacing khaki knickers with tros. Women are up in arms in Maharashtra and Kerala protesting the ban on their entry at Shani Shingnapur temple and Sabarimala temple, respectively. Congress-led UDF government in Kerala had ed the ban in writing before the Supreme Court which is hearing a petition challenging “menstruating women’s” entry into Sabarimala temple. The RSS appears to have drifted away from its previous stand since its mouthpiece ‘Organiser’ reportedly

argued in favour of the age-old tradition of restricting women’s entry into Shani Shingnapur temple. But, Sangh Parivar had reportedly favoured resolving the dispute through ‘respectful dialogue’ in an editorial in one of its issues published more than a month back. The Hindutva ideologue’s latest position is expected to remove ambiguity in handling the sensitive religious gender issue, also reflected in the BJP, where different leaders have been taking contradictory stands. Maharashtra chief minister Devendra Fadnavis had ed women activists’ demand for entry but with the caveat that his government would act as a facilitator to resolve the complex problem. At the same time, rural development minister Pankaja Munde had ed the ban on women’s entry into Shani temple. Suresh Bhaiyyaji Joshi’s annual report broached the topic under the sub-heading, “Women and Temple Entry,” while offering its narrative on “National Scenario”. “In the last few days, some elements inimical to the well being of society have raised unsavoury controversy over women’s entry into temple. From the hoary past, we have been following a lofty tradition in which in the religious and spiritual spheres, in matters of worship and piety, both men and women are naturally considered to be equal partners,” the RSS commented. To push its argument, the Sangh stated that over the years “women also have been learning Vedas and officiating as priests in temples in the natural course”. The RSS also adopted two resolutions – on effective healthcare and easy access to affordable medical services – on the second day of the Nagaur conclave. It is also expected to take a call on change of RSS uniform, replacing khaki knickers with tros.

Why The Ban On Women In Sabarimala Is ‘Neither Historical Nor Entirely Based On Religion’ 6.

Jan 21, 20166 Comments

By Elsa Oommen:

“For the last 20 years woman [sic] irrespective of their age were allowed to visit the temple when it opens for monthly poojas. They were not permitted to enter the temple during Mandalam, Makaravilakku and Vishu seasons.” (S. Mahendran vs The Secretary, Travancore (1991)(8) [AIR 1993 Ker 42]) Supreme Court of India will soon be hearing the final arguments on the question of the restriction imposed on women in the reproductive age from entering the Sabarimala temple in Kerala, in southern India. The court had earlier questioned the constitutional basis of the restriction, at the behest of a the public interest litigation (PIL) placed before the apex court of India by the Indian Young Lawyers Association (IYLA) where it called for allowing women of all ages to be allowed entry to the temple. The petition has also come to the special attention of the court owing to numerous death threats to the lawyers who gave the petition. Prayar Gopalakrishnan, the Sabarimala temple chief who had remarked that women will be allowed to enter the temple with the invention of machines to check the purity of women, triggered nationwide debates on the notion of menstruating women being impure and the viral campaign of #happytobleed which was followed by a letter written by a young college student Nikita Azad to Prayar Gopalakrishnan. The perpetuation of such discrimination on the basis of women’s natural biological process of menstruation goes against the fundamental rights, against freedom from discrimination which is guaranteed by the constitution. It can also be viewed as a restriction on access to public spaces such as the public roads from

Pampa to Sannidhanam (Ayyappa temple) which is also against fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens of India irrespective of caste, creed and gender. I will now be considering the case history of Sabarimala temple entry of women as it came up during the early 90s. The 1991 S. Mahendran vs The Secretary, Travancore (1991), [AIR 1993 Ker 42], Kerala High Court judgement is being cited by those upholding the ban on women entering the Sabarimala temple in Kerala. As I was glancing through the full judgement, it was evident that young women in the reproductive age were not banned from entering the temple except during mandalakalam,makaravilakku and vishu seasons. This has been also evident from the former Devaswom (Travancore Devaswom Board) Commissioner Smt. S. Chandrika’s statement that “the entry of young ladies in the temple during monthly poojas is not against the customs and practices followed in the temple.” Here she also its that her granddaughter’s first rice feeding ceremony (choroonu) was held at Sabarimala temple. All these details contained within S. Mahendran vs The Secretary, Travancore (1991) states that young women were free to go to Sabarimala except during the three seasons mentioned above. Justice Mishra, while going through the recent PIL submitted by IYLA had asked Travancore Devaswom Board what proof it had to say that women never entered the temple 1500 years ago. The recent statements given by the board in this petition seems to be countering the statements made by former Devaswom commissioner Smt. S Chandrika in 1991 about women having no restriction to enter the temple apart from the three seasons that has already been mentioned. As the case proceeded in 1991 with all the respondents, the High Court Bench of Justices K. Paripoornan and K.B. Marar examined the Sabarimala Tanthri since the Travancore State Manual stated that only the Tanthri could authoritatively give answers on such questions. Tanthri Sri Neelakandaru testified that women belonging to the restricted age group of 10 to 50 years were prohibited from entering the temple even before 1950, although the statement made by Smt. Chandrika had said that the entry of young ladies in the temple was not against the customs and practices of the temple. The High court gave the final order that

the restriction on women in the age group of 10-50 is in accordance with the customs of the temple and does not violate of Art 15, 25 and 26 of the constitution. One can see how the total ban on the women of reproductive age from entering the Sabarimala temple stemmed from “some devotees’ fear that women of menstrual age may defile the temple by their presence” (MG Radhakrishnan, 1995). Kerala Devaswom Minister G Sudhakaran had also remarked in 2007 that there is evidence to prove that women had visited the temple and there is need to restore a right once enjoyed by women. Nivedita Menon (2004:3) talks about the “the impossibility of appealing to women as a category unmediated by other identities like religion and caste.” It is in such circumstances that one has to see the vision of the framers of the Indian constitution when they did not go for complete separation of the state and the religion. The words of B. R Ambedkar (Chairman of the drafting committee of the Indian constitution) comes as a particular reminder in the understanding of the role of the constitution and legal machinery to be able to provide social justice. He had remarked that “the religious conceptions in this country are so vast that they cover every aspect of life, from birth to death. There is nothing which is not religion and if personal law is to be saved, I am sure about it that in social matters we will come to a standstill.” Here one can see where Ambedkar hints on the conscience collective drawing from religion that they cover almost all aspects of life and death. Durkheim, the classical sociologist examined the situation of mechanical solidarity where “the totality of beliefs and sentiments common to average citizens of the same society forms a determinate system which has its own life; one may call it the collective or common conscience (Durkheim, 1893).” While conscience collective holds the society together, it also necessitates changes to the nature of solidarity when the society becomes more diffuse and the constituent elements become more distinct and developed. The intervention of the state law into the customary practices of the various communities is seen to have produced far-flung changes in the nature of these laws which existed prior to them. It is to be noted that this is not just a

linear process whereby the non-state acquires the elements of the state law, but also a case where the state law or the dominant law also seems to assimilate the elements of the customary law. The courts in India have led social reform agendas in a country that is still largely enveloped by some form of conscience collective which can be oppressive to marginalised groups in the society such as scheduled castes, minorities and women. India has also witnessed murders of social reformers and activists such as Narendra Dabholkar who had also fought gender bias in temples and places of worship. Thus, the emancipatory role of the apex court is of utmost importance in fighting such deep rooted biases which exist in the society. To conclude, the Supreme Court has rightly cited constitutional guarantees of equality to question the restriction imposed on women in the reproductive age group. “Why can you not let a woman enter? On what basis are you prohibiting women entry? What is your logic? Women may or may not want to go [to worship at Sabarimala], but that is their personal choice,” remarked Justice Dipak Misra, heading a three-member apex court bench on the case, “you cannot prevent them from worshipping at the shrine.” Radhakrishnan (1995) examines how the then president of the Travancore Devaswom Board, N. Bhaskaran Nair, had hinted at possible changes when similar demands for women’s entry came up in the early 90s by saying, “I respect all the temple conventions but, personally, I think a change is inevitable. Once the lower caste people were denied entry into the temples. The ban on women may also change.” One can see that the total ban on women in Sabarimala temple is neither historical nor entirely based on religion, but merely based on the decisions of an all-male establishment which is free to stipulate rules which discriminate against women on the basis of biological and physical conditions intrinsic to their gender.

7.

Call for 1991 Sabarimala case records: Kerala

IBPS Book PDF - Free IBPS Formulas, and Prepare Tips to Save Time in Examwww.talentsprint.com/Bank

Ads by Google



KRISHNADAS RAJAGOPAL COMMENT · PRINT · T

T

inShare TOPICS India Kerala

judiciary (system of justice) court istration

religion and belief hinduism

A Division Bench of the Kerala HC had upheld the restriction on women of a particular age group offering worship at the shrine. In a submission that may indicate the Kerala government’s position on access to women aged between 10 and 50 to the Sabarimala shrine, the State asked the Supreme Court on Monday to call for the records of a 1991 judgment of the Kerala High Court, which held that the restriction was in accordance with a usage from time immemorial and not discriminatory under the Constitution. A Division Bench of the Kerala HC had, on April 5, 1991, examined the Sabarimala Thanthri (chief priest) and upheld the restriction on women of a particular age group offering worship at the shrine. The HC Bench of Justices K. Paripoornan and K.B. Marar held that the prohibition imposed by the Travancore Devaswom Board was not violative of Articles 15, 25 and 26 of the Constitution. Neither was it violative of the provisions of the Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965 as the prohibition was only in respect of women of a particular age group and not women as a class. The HC examined Ravivarma Raja of the Pandalam royal family, to which the temple belonged, and the Ayyappa Seva Sangham secretary. The verdict referred to the belief that the deity is a ‘Naisthik Brahmachari.’ ‘Customs must be followed’ The Kerala government urged the Court to consider the assertion made in 1991 by the then Sabarimala Thanthri Sri Neelakandaru that women belonging to the 10 to 50 age group were prohibited from entering the temple even before 1950.

A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court had examined him on April 5, 1991, before it upheld the restriction on women of that age group offering worship at the Sabarimala shrine. Summon records Senior advocate V. Giri, appearing for Kerala, urged the special three-judge Bench led by Justice Dipak Misra to summon the records of the 1991 case. “According to him, these customs and usages had to be followed for the welfare of the temple. He said only persons who had observed penance and followed the customs are eligible to enter the temple and it is not proper for young women to do so,” the 1991 judgment had said. Twenty-five years after this High Court judgment, the Supreme Court has questioned the “logic” behind the restriction, even wondering whether there was any proof that women did not enter the sanctum sanctorum 1,500 years ago. Keywords: Ban on women’s entry in Sabarimala

Are Women Incapable Of Spirituality?' Questions Supreme Court On Sabarimala Ban 8.

Kerala | Reported by A Vaidyanathan, Edited by Deepshikha Ghosh | Updated: February 12, 2016 20:43 IST by Taboola Sponsored Links

Sponsored The MBA Banker Who Survived A Serious Accident (BigDecisions Quiz) Investing Rs.1000 Per Month Can Lead to Long Term Wealth Creation. (MyUniverse) EMAIL PRINT

120COMMENTS

The Sabarimala temple bans women between 10 and 50.

NEW DELHI: HIGHLIGHTS 1.

Supreme Court questions Sabarimala ban on women, cites Hindu scriptures

2.

SC asks temple board: Is spirituality a domain of only men?

3.

SC is hearing an appeal against ban on menstruating women at temple

Kerala's Sabarimala temple's ban on women was questioned today by the Supreme Court, which said that Hindu scriptures Vedas and Upanishads do not discriminate between men and women. "In the Vedas, Upanishads or scriptures there is no discrimination between and men and women. This has cropped up historically," the court said. "Is spirituality a domain of only men? Are women incapable of spirituality?" The court is hearing a petition challenging the ban on women between 10 and 50 entering the ancient temple dedicated to Lord Ayyappa. "We are not taking a narrow view. We want to strike a constitutional balance between the right to equality and the right to religious practice. The temple is a religious phenomenon and its functions must come within parameters," the court said. The temple board lawyer KK Venugopal argued, the practice was in place for 1000 years, so why dig it up now? "The whole of Sabarimala hill is sanctified and women can't enter," he said. The temple claims that women who menstruate are impure and must not be given access to the hilltop shrine. The court asked the temple board and the state government to give details on when the discrimination began at the temple and the historical reasons. "This discrimination will be tested on the parameters of constitutional equality and right to custom and religious practices," the court said. The temple has six weeks to respond. In November, the head of the temple's board, Prayar Gopalakrishnan, created a huge controversy by stating that women would be able to access the temple after a machine is created that would function like a body scanner to determine which women were "pure" enough to make the cut. Story First Published:February 12, 2016 15:20 IST

Sabarimala Temple Can't Ban Women, Says Supreme Court 9.

Kerala | Reported by A Vaidyanathan, Edited by Veer Arjun Singh | Updated: January 11, 2016 23:32 IST by Taboola Sponsored Links

Sponsored The MBA Banker Who Survived A Serious Accident (BigDecisions Quiz) Investing Rs.1000 Per Month Can Lead to Long Term Wealth Creation. (MyUniverse)

Senior advocate, appearing for Kerala, said the women, who have not attained menopause, cannot preserve the purity during the religious journey to the temple which takes 41 days.

NEW DELHI: Women cannot be banned from the famous Sabarimala temple in Kerala, the Supreme Court said today, though it has not delivered a verdict yet on one of the most contentious features of the famous temple, which claims that women who menstruate are impure and must not be given access to the hilltop shrine. Women between the age of 10 and 50 are banned from entering the ancient temple dedicated to Lord Ayyappa. The rule, introduced by the powerful Travancore Devasom Board that maintains the temple, must be over-turned, a group of women lawyers have contended in their appeal to the top court. "The temple cannot prohibit entry (women), except on the basis of religion. Unless you have a constitutional right, you cannot prohibit entry, "said the judges who heard the case today. The next date of hearing is February 8. In November, the head of the temple's board, Prayar Gopalakrishnan, created a huge controversy by stating that women would be able to access the temple after a machine is created that would function like a body scanner to determine which women were "pure" enough to make the cut. Story First Published:January 11, 2016 18:56 IST