The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined an early hearing of petitions seeking recall of a Constitution Bench judgment allowing entry of women in the age group of 10 to 50 years into the Sabarimala temple in Kerala dedicated to Lord Ayyappa.
A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi declined the plea for urgent hearing.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph had considered the submission of Shylaja Vijayan, president, National Ayyappa Devotees Association through lawyer Mathews J Nedumpara, which contended that the five-judge Constitution bench verdict lifting the ban was “absolutely untenable and irrational”.
“It will be listed in due court,” the bench said, adding that in any case, the review petition will be heard in chamber and not in open court.
The lawyer, appearing for the Devotees Association, also sought a stay on the verdict and said the temple would be opening on October 16 for pilgrimage.
The bench, however, said the review petition can only be taken up after the Dussehra vacation.
A five-judge constitution bench headed by then Chief Justice Dipak Misra, had in its 4:1 verdict, said banning the entry of women into the shrine is gender discrimination and that the practice violates rights of Hindu women.
Kerala government on Monday had reiterated its stand stating that it will implement the Supreme Court verdict on the entry of women in Sabarimala temple.
Addressing a press conference, Vijayan said it was not the policy of the government to fight with believers. However, the chief minister said the interest of the believers will be protected and that the government was ready for a discussion.
Meanwhile, the review petition filed by National Ayyappa Devotees (Women’s) Association submitted that, “Faith cannot be judged by scientific or rationale reasons or logic”.
“The notion that the judgment under review is revolutionary, one which removes the stigma or the concept of dirt or pollution associated with menstruation, is unfounded. It is a judgment welcomed by hypocrites who were aspiring for media headlines. On the merits of the case, as well, the said judgment is absolutely untenable and irrational, if not perverse,” the petition submitted.
(With agency inputs)