The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its verdict on a clutch of petitions seeking the entry of women between the ages of 10 and 50 into the Sabarimala temple in Kerala, reported PTI. The five-judge Constitution bench asked the counsels to compile and submit the submissions within a week.

“We will pass orders,” said the court. “Advocate on record of both the sides will collect written submissions and compile it and submit before the court in seven days.”

The bench comprises Chief Justice Dipak Misra, RF Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra. It is considering whether the practice is discriminatory and violates fundamental rights or qualifies as an “essential religious practice” under Article 25 of the Constitution. The Article 25 allows citizens the freedom to follow their religion the way they choose.

The Kerala government told the court that the custom of barring entry to women was not permissible under the Constitution. It argued that the celibate status of a deity cannot be a ground for such a ban as it is a Hindu shrine and not a temple of a particular denomination. “It is my submissions, that it is not a denominational temple and the religious rights are not protected,” said senior advocate Jaideep Gupta.

Lawyer Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for intervenor Usha Nandini, had earlier argued that the actual reason women of menstruating age are not allowed is that the deity is celibate. “Lord Ayyappa is a juristic person who decides who can and cannot come to him,” he had said.

Gupta said the Constitutional provisions have to be interpreted broadly. “Our Constitution is reformist and if we keep going back to the period of holy antiquity then there won’t be any reforms,” he said.

He, however, added that there was no need to strike down Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 that bars women from entering the temple. “The rule can be read in such a manner to the effect that women cannot be excluded,” he said. To this, Justice Nariman said, “Very difficult. Very difficult.”

Advocate Indira Jaising, who represented the petitioners challenging the ban, said the court had always done away with laws or practices that prevented people from going to temples. She argued it was a case of discrimination. “It is a case of discrimination on the basis of menstruation alone and is like creating sub-classification even among women,” Jaising said. “It is not only discrimination between men and women but also women and women.”

On Tuesday, the court said the Constitutional scheme prohibiting exclusion of women “has some value in a vibrant democracy”. “First of all, we have to determine whether the devotees of Lord Ayyappa constituted a separate Ayyappan religious denomination,” the bench had observed. “The Indian Constitution has to have some value if it prevents exclusion. If the Constitution permits equal rights to citizens, then so be it.”