The Supreme Court will on Friday announce 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, Live Law reported. A five-judge Constitution bench had reserved its verdict on August 1.

The court had set up the Constitution bench in October 2017 to consider whether the practice is discriminatory and hence in violation of fundamental rights, or if it qualifies as an “essential religious practice” under Article 25 of the Constitution, which allows the freedom to follow religion in a manner one chooses.

The bench comprises Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justices RF Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra. The Indian Young Lawyers Association, among the petitioners challenging the ban, had filed its plea in the top court in 2006, but the case lay in cold storage till it was finally taken up for hearing in January 2016.

Women aged between 10 and 50 are barred from entering Ayyappa’s hill-top shrine, but it is unclear when or why this restriction came into effect. Those who oppose the ban have argued that this is prejudiced against women and is linked to orthodox notions of menstruating women being impure. However, temple authorities contend that Ayyappa had taken a vow of celibacy and the ban was a measure to respect his mission and keep the deity away from distraction.

Supporters of the ban say this practice has been followed down the ages, because worshippers were required to fast for 41 days before undertaking the pilgrimage to Sabarimala, something that menstruating women could not undergo for physiological regions.

This rule was codified in the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act 1965 when a clause was introduced to it stating that “women who are not by custom and usage allowed to enter a place of public worship shall not be entitled to enter or offer worship in any place of public worship”.

After changing its stance multiple times, the Kerala government in July 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.