Background of the issue

♤ Sabarimala temple’s age-old practice barred women in their reproductive phases (when they were at the menstruating phase) from entering the temple on the ground that the presiding deity was a complete celibate.

♤ In the “Indian Young Lawyers Association & Others vs The State of Kerala & Others” case, 2018, a five- judge bench had delivered a landmark 4:1 ruling setting aside the decades-old restrictions on the entry of women of reproductive age inside Sabarimala Temple.

o The judgment remarked that ban on the entry of women in Sabarimala is a kind of untouchability, and thus violative of Article 17.

o However, Sabrimala Temple Board had argued that these were matters of “faith”, “belief” and cannot be termed as regressive, anti-women and had therefore urged the court not to interfere with the practice

o Justice Indu Malhotra also had dissented against the majority verdict on the ground that courts should not sit on judgement over harmless religious beliefs unless they were pernicious practices such as sati.

♤ Recently, review pleas were filed against above order. The petitioners contended that the 2018 judgments suffered from an error apparent since constitutional morality is a vague concept which cannot be utilised to undermine belief and faith.

♤ However, the court did not stay its earlier verdict which allowed women between the ages of 10 and 50 to visit Sabarimala temple.

♤ Now, the larger Bench would also consider the entry of women into mosques and the practice of female genital mutilation, prevalent among the Dawoodi Bohras Sect.