Singhvi argued that there are other temples of Ayyappa where women are allowed inside.
A day after the Supreme Court said women have the right to enter and pray like men at the famous Sabarimala temple in Kerala, the Travancore Devaswom Board on Thursday said that the nature of deity is the reason why women in menstruating age are not allowed inside.
Arguing for the Travancore Devaswom Board in the Supreme Court, Abhishek Manu Singhvi said, "The nature of the deity, history of the temple is such that women in menstruating age are not allowed inside."
"The basis of the Sabarimala Temple's practice is related to the celibate form of the Deity who is a Naishtika Brahmachari," senior advocate and Rajya Sabha MP argued.
Singhvi argued that there are other temples of Ayyappa where women are allowed inside. On this Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra commented that they (women) believe in Sabarimala and observed that there are many Jagannath temples but people throng Puri.
Singhvi responded by saying that if they indeed believe in the Deity in Sabarimala, they must respect the traditions of the temple and observe its practices.
A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra is currently hearing the contentious issue relating to the ban on entry of menstruating women between 10 and 50 years of age inside the 800-year-old temple.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday had said that the fundamental right of freedom to practice religion is provided to "all persons" by the Constitution and the women have the right to enter and pray like men at the famous Sabarimala temple in Kerala.
"Can a religious practice run contrary to the constitutional mandate?" asked the bench.
"When a man can enter, a woman can also go. What applies to a man, applies to a woman also," the bench, also comprising justices R F Nariman, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra, said.
The Supreme Court is hearing a clutch of pleas filed by Indian Young Lawyers Association and others. The apex court had on October 13 last year referred the issue to a Constitution bench after framing five "significant" questions including whether the practice of banning entry of women into the temple amounted to discrimination and violated their fundamental rights under the Constitution.
(With PTI inputs)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Supreme Court lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi, PTI")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}