Earlier, the apex court was told by the management of the Sabarimala temple that as the women can not maintain the "purity" on account of menstruation, the ban on entry of women aged between 10 and 50 years is imposed.
The apex court also framed a question about whether restricting the entry of women at the temple was violative of their rights under the Constitution. If women are allowed in rush hours it will lead to many issues.
The temple, situated in the Pathanamthitta district of Kerala, restricts women aged between 10 and 50 from visiting the premises. The court, in January 2016, had questioned the ban and claimed that it couldn't be allowed under the Constitution. The Constitution of India guarantees this right too.
The Supreme Court will declare its decision on the long-existing ban on entry of women.
In 2007, the then LDF government had filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court in favour of Women's entry in Sabarimala.
Those who supported the ban submitted that the concept "essential part of religious practice" has to be decided by the Court with reference to the practices, which are regarded, by the large sections of the community for several centuries.
Jaguars at Steelers: Highlights, score and recap
Pittsburgh (3-2) again struggled to get big-play production out of an offense that was supposed to be among the league's best. Jaguars quarterback Blake Bortles went 8-for-14 for 95 yards, with no touchdowns and one interception.
Welcoming the apex court's move, women rights organisations hoped that the Constitution bench would give women equal rights.
The issue being discussed is whether the practice violates Art 14 and 25 of the Constitution.
Gopalakrishnan said both the custom and security and safety of women were their concerns on the matter.
He asked if everyone was trying to make Sabarimala a Thailand by making women between the age of 10 to 50 climb uphill under the challenging weather conditions without any safety. Article 15 of the Constitution places a clear constitutional obligation on the state to not discriminate against any citizen on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth.
The petition argued that the ban, enforced by Rule 3 (b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules, 1965, was unconstitutional insofar as it violated Articles 14 (equality before law), 25 and 26 (freedom of religion).