Venugopal told the apex court that there was no question

of "absolute prohibition" as women below the age of 10 years and above 50 years were permitted to enter the temple.

He said that according to customs, Lord Ayyappa, being a bachelor, had said that women would not enter the temple and it was an "age-old" practice that was being followed.

However, the counsel, who is opposing the ban on entry of women, said that fundamental rights of a person, irrespective of the gender, cannot be violated.

Some counsel, supporting the ban on entry of women, said that deity has its own right and this practice has been followed at Sabrimala temple since long.

To this, the bench observed that "the theories you are propagating and the hypothesis on the basis of which you are arguing, we do not intend to comment because it is not in our domain".

"There is no doubt that apart from being omnipresent, the God, whether he or she, is present everywhere in every item.

We are not going to discuss about that. There is distinction between religion and spirituality, spirituality and philosophy and philosophy and religion," the bench observed.

"We are too small to understand the ways of god. Let us not go into that," the bench said.

Some of the advocates argued that it was important to ascertain what were the customs and the age old practice which was followed there.

"It has to be determined whether this place of public worship belongs to a particular denomination," the court said.

The bench also allowed various applications, filed in support and against the ban on women's entry, seeking impleadment in the matter.

It, however, clarified that in due course of the hearing, these applicants will be permitted to file their written submissions.

The bench declined the request of some of the applicants that they should also be allowed to file written submissions for the issues which may be dwelt upon by the larger bench.

(More)

(This article has not been edited by DNA's editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)