"Gender equality is a constitutional message and they (temple management) cannot say that this (banning women) comes under their right to manage religious affairs," a bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra said.
The bench, also comprising Justices V Gopala Gowda and Kurian Joseph, reiterated that it would test the "so-called" customary practice under the provisions of the Constitution.
At the outset, senior advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for NGO 'Happy to Bleed' which is seeking women's entry into the historic shrine in Kerala, said the law was meant for "removal of social ills" and constitutional principles would prevail over discriminatory customs and beliefs.
The right to enter a public temple is available to all Hindus irrespective of gender, she said, adding that any custom, belief or even law could be termed "void" if they do not conform to the constitutional principles.
Also Read
During the hearing when Jaising started dealing with the aspect that the deity at Sabarimala is "celibate" and "brahmachari", the bench asked her not to get into it.
Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, who is assisting the
court as an amicus curiae, said "the practice, which keeps women away and prevents them from worshipping the deity of the shrine because of their biology, is derogatory and detrimental to their dignity".
During the hearing, the bench, referring to the belief that the deity at Sabarimala is celibate, asked, "If the deity says I don't want to see you, why compel him? If he doesn't want to be pleased, why compel him to be pleased?".
The hearing in the case would resume on April 22.
Earlier, the apex court had said that denying women the right to enter and pray in the historic temple cannot be justified on the basis of traditions which violated constitutional principle.