NEW DELHI: The Travancore Devaswom Board, which manages the Sabarimala temple, reversed its stand to back entry of women in the “menstruating age” into the shrine before the Supreme Court which reserved orders on Wednesday on pleas seeking review of its ruling allowing unrestricted entry of women.

The Kerala government said social harmony has been disturbed but this could not be grounds to allow an unconstitutional practice. Parties seeking a review argued the court should not intervene in a specific religious practice and that public opinion in the state had opposed the order on a significant scale.

In three and a half hours of proceedings before a Constitution bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi , Justices A M Khanwilkar, R F Nariman, D Y Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra, a batch of senior lawyers presented arguments in support of and against the 56 review petitions.

The Devaswom Board’s altered stand attracted attention as it told the court that it now accepts the verdict by which the gender barrier at Sabarimala Temple had been dismantled.

Those opposing unrestricted entry of women have argued that the practice is specific to the Sabarimala shrine and enjoys the sanction of tradition while it does not apply to the deity’s other shrines. They said Lord Ayappa, as a “perpetual bachelor”, has legal rights that must be respected in the case of Sabarimala.

The Board had lead from the front when the apex court examined the constitutional validity of the practice by which women in the age group 10-50 years were barred. It had then submitted this is an essential part religious belief and justified ban on entry for female devotees of menstruating age to maintain purity of temple.

When senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the Board, told the bench that the SC verdict was to ensure equal entitlement to men and women, it took everyone by surprise and Justice Indu Malhotra asked whether the Board has changed its stand. Dwivedi replied in affirmative and said the Board had already filed an application in this regard.

Opposing the review plea, Dwivedi said it was time for inclusion and women could not be denied rights to worship and society has to evolve to ensure they are treated equally as men in all walks of life including at religious places. He said that the people opposing the SC verdict should accept the judgment gracefully and allow entry of all women inside the temple.

Pressing for re-examination of the apex court’s September, 2018 verdict, senior advocates K Parasaran, V Giri, A M Singhvi and Shekhar Naphade said the court should have refrained from examining validity of a practice based on religious faith and belief. They said the entry of women in the age group of 10-50 was prohibited due to nature of deity and it was an internal matter of a community.

Naphade said it was not the jurisdiction of a court to decide what essential part of a religion is and it has to be decided by the community. Referring to protests in Kerala leading to law and order problem, he told the bench that social peace and harmony was disturbed in the aftermath of SC verdict. “The community has not accepted the verdict. Can court force its view on them? It is beyond the jurisdiction of the court,” he said.

Appearing for the state, senior advocate Jaideep Gupta said no case is made out for court to review its verdict. He admitted social harmony got disturbed but said it cannot be a ground to allow an unconstitutional practice of keeping women away. He said the practice is not essential part of Hinduism and practise which is against the fundamental principles of Constitution had to abolished.

Senior advocate Indira Jaising , appearing for two women who managed to enter the temple, said that they were facing a social boycott and exclusion for visiting the temple. “The fact that purification of temple was done after their visits showed the discrimination against them by treating menstruating women as impure and polluted. This hits at the heart of the constitution,” she said.

The court, after hearing both sides, reserved its order and allowed the parties to file their written submission.

A five-judge Constitution bench had by a majority of 4:1 held that devotees of Lord Ayyappa were “exclusively Hindus” and do not constitute a separate religious denomination and the practice of exclusion of women could not be regarded as an essential part of the religion.

