The Kerala High Court recently denied permission for a 10-year-old girl to enter the Sabarimala temple.

Entry to the famous Sabarimala temple is traditionally restricted for women between the ages of 10 and 50 years, a practice intended to prevent the entry of women and girls of menstruating age.

Back in 2018, the Supreme Court held that women of all ages should be allowed to enter the temple. However, later a review petition challenging this verdict is currently pending before a larger bench of the top court. Consequently, the earlier age restriction remains in effect.

Recently, a division bench comprising Justices Anil K Narendran and Harisankar V Menon dismissed the plea of a 10-year-old girl seeking to enter the temple, citing the pending review petition as the reason for their decision.

"Since the question regarding the interplay between freedom of religion under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India and the provisions in Part III, particularly Article 14, and connected issues are pending before a larger Bench of the Supreme Court in Kantaru Rajeevaru v. Indian Young Lawyers Association in the review petitions arising out of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, the petitioner cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the aforesaid reliefs," the judgment stated.

The petition was filed by the minor girl after her online application to visit Sabarimala was rejected by the Travancore Devaswom Board, the body responsible for the temple's administration.

Her primary contention was that the 10-year age limit was set for convenience to exclude girls who have reached puberty. She argued that, since she has not yet attained puberty, she should be allowed to participate in the pilgrimage to Sabarimala.

However, the Court referred to its earlier judgment in S. Mahendran v. Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board & Ors., stating that the age restriction aligns with longstanding customs and is not in violation of the Hindu Place of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965, or Articles 15, 25, and 26 of the Constitution.

Since questions regarding the interplay between freedom of religion under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India and the provisions in Part III, particularly Article 14, are now to be decided by a larger bench of the Supreme Court, the High Court deemed it appropriate to dismiss the girl's petition.

The minor girl was represented by advocates Manu Govind and A. Jayasankar, while the Travancore Devaswom Board was represented by advocate G. Biju.