Supreme Court to Decide on Sabarimala Temple Entry for Girls Under 10

### Background A 10-year-old girl, represented by her father, has filed a writ petition seeking permission to undertake a pilgrimage to the Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple during the upcoming Maasapooja festival, without being subject to the upper age limit of 10 years. The Travancore Devaswom Board, which manages the temple, had previously rejected the girl's father's application for the pilgrimage, citing the age restriction. ### Arguments The petitioner's counsel argued that the law laid down in the S. Mahendran v. Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board case and the prevailing custom in Sabarimala allow girl children who have not attained puberty to undertake the pilgrimage. They contended that the upper age limit of 10 is merely a matter of convenience and should not be a barrier for the petitioner. On the other hand, the Travancore Devaswom Board's counsel argued that the issues raised in the petition are currently being considered by a larger bench of the Supreme Court in the Kantararu Rajeevaru (Sabarimala Temple Review-5 J.) v. Indian Young Lawyers Association case. They submitted that it would not be appropriate for the Board to take a stance on the matter until the Supreme Court has delivered its final judgment. ### Court's Analysis and Reasoning The court acknowledged that the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act places a duty on the Travancore Devaswom Board to ensure the proper conduct of traditional rites and ceremonies at the Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple, as well as to maintain proper facilities for the devotees. However, the court noted that the Supreme Court is currently deliberating on the interplay between the fundamental right to freedom of religion under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution and the provisions of Part III, particularly Article 14 (equality before the law), in the Kantararu Rajeevaru case. As these are the core issues underlying the petitioner's request, the court held that it would not be appropriate to intervene until the Supreme Court has delivered its final judgment on the matter. ### Decision The court dismissed the writ petition, leaving the legal and factual contentions raised by the petitioner open for consideration by the Supreme Court in the ongoing Kantararu Rajeevaru case. The court recognized that the petitioner would have to wait for the Supreme Court's final decision on the issues before pursuing her request to undertake the pilgrimage to the Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple.