The case consists of a sequence of writ pleas and overview petitions based mostly on a 2018 verdict permitting ladies of menstruating age entry into the Sabarimala Ayyappa temple in Kerala.
In November 2019, a majority judgment by a five-judge Structure Bench led by the then Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi had initially referred the Sabarimala overview and writ petitions to a seven-judge Bench.
However the 2019 majority judgment didn’t confine the reference to merely the Sabarimala case. It had taken a wider perspective of the questions of regulation which touched on the ecclesiastical, together with whether or not spiritual practices thought of important ought to be given Constitutional safety, and the extent of judicial intervention in such issues.
The Gogoi Bench had clubbed the Sabarimala case overview with different pending petitions regarding different faiths, however posing related questions of regulation. These included the precise of Muslim ladies to enter mosques; the precise of Parsi ladies who’ve married out of their religion to enter their spiritual place of worship, and the problem of feminine genital mutilation practised by the Dawoodi Bohra group.
