Women's entry in Sabarimala: SC reserves judgment after amicus curiae argues issues of religion can't be tested by judicial parameters

The Supreme Court reserved its verdict on a clutch of petitions challenging restriction on the entry of women between the ages of 10 and 50 into Kerala’s Sabarimala temple. Arguments for the case concluded on Wednesday. Amicus curiae K Ramamurthy argued that the apex court should steer clear of interfering with the religious practises which have been in vogue for centuries, reported  CNN News18. Rejoinders were then submitted by lawyers RP Gupta and Indira Jaisingh. Towards the end of the hearing, lawyer Jaideep Gupta concluded his arguments on the note that the Constitution is reformist and going back to antiquity will not result in reform. The hearing for the eighth day concluded and the bench reserved its judgment. During the hearing, the bench heard arguments about the celibate nature of the temple’s deity. The court has to decide validity of the custom that bars entry of women between the ages of 10 and 50 years. Women of menstruating age are restricted from entering the temple as its deity, Lord Ayyappa, is considered to be celibate. The Sabarimala temple entry case is being heard by a Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra along with justices Rohinton Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra. [caption id=“attachment_4868111” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  Crowds at the Sabarimala temple. Reuters[/caption] Amicus curaie K Ramamurthy earlier stated that this is a matter of religious practise protected under Article 25 of the Constitution of India and this cannot be tested on any judicial parameters. So the Supreme Court should not be deliberating on an issue which connotes religious practise, customs which have been practised by a religious denomination for centuries, he argued. Ramamurthy said the State can interfere with the secular affairs of temple, not into religious aspects and that higher things have to be debated before the court but not this, reported  Bar and Bench.  Senior advocate Raju Ramchandran, another amicus curiae appointed in the case, has taken a contrary view. He argued that this is an issue about violations of Fundamental Rights of women. According to Ramchandran, this restriction violates women’s Right to Equality and is discriminatory. Hence, the apex court should step in and do away with this practise, he argued. With inputs from PTI