The Supreme Court on Thursday said that it cannot remain oblivious of the fact that the entry of women into the Sabarimala temple was barred on “physiological ground” of menstruation irrespective of submissions that Lord Ayyappa has a “celibate character”.

A five-judge Constitution bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra, RF Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra was hearing on pleas challenging the restriction on the entry of women between the ages of 10 and 50 into the Sabarimala temple.

The bench, which was hearing pleas of Indian Young Lawyers Association and others challenging the ban, asked whether the practice was an “essential and integral” practice of a religious denomination.

Justice Chandrachud said there was no need to go into the essentiality test and “the core of issue is whether Constitution overrides all other aspects”. “If yes, then nobody can exclude a class of women from visiting temple,” PTI quoted him as saying.

The Kshetra Samrakshana Samiti said the Supreme Court bench should not “tinker with the religious practice of restricting the entry of women between 10 and 50” into the temple, reported NDTV. “Any interference with the age-old custom will result in another Ayodhya and will create social tension in Kerala,” said lawyer Kailasanatha Pillay, who represented the group.

Misra responded by saying that if it is a public temple, then the custom and practice must be integral to the religion. “The question is how far the practice of exclusion of certain category of women is valid,” he said. “Your custom must stand the test of constitutional provisions.”

Sai Deepak, counsel for People for Dharma, said Ayyappa of the Sabarimala temple is a “juristic person” for the purposes of property ownership and taxes and therefore has rights under Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty), Article 25 (freedom to practice religion) and Article 26 (freedom to manage religious affair) of the Constitution.

The deity has the right to remain a “naishtika brahmachari” eternal celibate) and this was part of the right to privacy of the deity, the lawyer said. Women have been respecting the tradition for a long time and this was “not a case of temple versus women or men versus women”, Deepak added.

Senior advocate K Radhhakrishnan, appearing for the Pandalam royal family, referred to the concept of morality and said that constitutional morality cannot override the private morality in cases of religious practices. “The silent majority has been doing 41 days of penance and they are not being heard this court,” he said.

The Constitution bench is considering whether the practice is discriminatory and, therefore, in violation of the right to equality before law, protection from religious discrimination and the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution, or whether it qualifies as an “essential religious practice” under Article 25, which allows grants every citizen the freedom to follow one’s religion in a manner one chooses.