NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court made it plain on Tuesday that religious institutions not letting in women would have to establish that the gender discrimination they practised was integral to their religion, in a clear indication that the court is willing to entertain challenges similar to one that faces Kerala 's Sabarimala Ayyappa temple barring entry of women of menstrual age.

The SC's reply came after the Travancore Devaswom Board, which administers the shrine, asked whether the court would adjudicate on similar practice in other religious places.

The apex court has repeatedly questioned the ban on the entry of women aged between 10 and 50 at Sabarimala. "The moment anyone comes to the court and points out that her/his fundamental right has been violated because of a discriminatory practice, the onus shifts on the institution which practises this allegedly discriminatory practice to shore up evidence to defend the practice as integral to their religion. The problem is that women are being barred only because of their physiological character during a certain age group," a bench of CJI Dipak Misra and Justices RF Nariman, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra said.

Indicating its openness to examine PILs challenging similar discriminatory customs in other Hindu and non-Hindu religious denominations, the bench said, "We cannot strike down all such practices in one go. We will deal with it as and when we are asked to go into it."

The board, through senior advocate AM Singhvi, attempted to link the practice to the faith and belief of Ayyappa devotees and argued that custom was not anti-women as those below 10 years or above 50 years were treated equally with men.

"It is a matter of faith and belief of Sabarimala followers. This custom has been in vogue uninterruptedly for decades and hence protected by the fundamental right of members of the denomination. There are several such practices in other Hindu and non-Hindu religious places, which a progressive modern mind would not approve of. But they are protected under Article 26 of Constitution," he said.

