Muslim Women Can't Enter Mosques Through Main Entry: AIMPLB Tells Supreme Court During Sabarimala Hearing

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board on Thursday told the Supreme Court that while Muslim women are not barred from offering prayers in mosques, they cannot insist on entering through the main door or object to partitions separating men and women inside the mosque.

The Supreme Court's 9-judge bench is hearing a batch of petitions challenging the 2018 Sabarimala verdict. The submission have been made by AIMPLB as part of a broader hearing examining the scope of essential religious practices and the balance between faith-based customs and constitutional rights.

Senior Advocate MR Shamshad, appearing for the board, submitted before a nine-judge bench that it is preferable if Muslim women stay at home and offer prayers.

"For woman, it is preferable that she stays at home and prays, and she gets the same religious reward. But if a woman wants to come, she can come," he said.

"So, it is not mandated for them to attend a congregation?" Justice Nagarathna asked.

In response, Shamshad answered that it is "not preferable" for a woman to attend the congregation in the mosque.

Justice Amanullah went on to say at this stage, "So the reason was that if everybody goes from the house, who looks after the children?"

On the petition before Supreme Court, the senior lawyer argued that there was no objection to the relief sough that women should be allowed to enter the mosque and offer prayers but objected that they should be allowed to enter through the main door and have a right to visual and auditory access to the Musalla. He said that one has to follow the inner discipline of the mosque after entering it.

Last month, after five years of the review petitions being taken up last, the Supreme Court of India today took up the batch of petitions challenging its September 2018 decision wherein a 5-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court by a 4:1 majority had ruled that the traditional ban on women aged 10–50 years entering the Sabarimala temple was unconstitutional. Notably, more than 50 review petitions have filed by devotees, religious groups, and organisations arguing that the Court interfered with essential religious practices as Lord Ayyappa devotees form a separate religious denomination.

The issue dates back to 2006, when Indian Young Lawyers Association had filed a Writ Petition challenging the validity of Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 (1965 Rules) and sought a direction to permit female devotees between the ages of 10 to 50 years to enter the Sabarimala temple without any restrictions.

By a majority of 4:1, the Supreme Court allowed the Writ Petition on 28 September 2018 holding that the devotees of Lord Ayyappa did not constitute a separate religious denomination and therefore cannot claim the benefit of Article 26 of the Constitution of India. Supreme Court also concluded that exclusion of women between the ages of 10 to 50 years from entry into the temple is violative of Article 25 of the Constitution of India. Further, Rule 3 (b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 was declared as violative of Article 25 (1) to the Constitution of India and ultra vires Section 3 of Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965.

On 14 November 2019, a five judge Constitution Bench delivered a crucial order by a 3:2 Majority wherein it kept the Review petitions pending without overturning the 2018 judgment and referred larger constitutional questions to a 9-judge bench. The 9-judge bench led by former CJI SA Bobde held that no matter is beyond the jurisdiction of a superior Court of record unless it is expressly shown to be so, under the provisions of the Constitution and held that the review petitions were maintainable.

The Sabarimala review petitions is now one of the most important constitutional debates, balancing gender equality with religious freedom. Instead of immediately revising the 2018 verdict, the Supreme Court has chosen to examine wider questions affecting multiple faiths, making the case a landmark in constitutional and religious jurisprudence. Court has now expanded the issue beyond Sabarimala to include Muslim women’s entry into mosques, Parsi women’s religious rights and Dawoodi Bohra excommunication practices along with other similar issues.

Case Title: KANTARU RAJEEVARU Vs INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION THR.ITS GENERAL SECRETARY MS. BHAKTI PASRIJA AND ORS.

Bench: CJI Surya Kant, Justices B V Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, AG Masih, R Mahadevan, Prasanna B Varale and Joymalya Bagchi

Hearing Date: April 23, 2026