Addressing media persons here, board present K Jayakumar and members said the decision was based on the board's statutory obligation to uphold temple customs and traditions.
The court stated that Article 361 of the Constitution says that the President or the governor of a state shall not be answerable to any court for the performance of the powers.
Observing that the PIL was an “abuse of process of law”, the court said the association should work for the bar and the welfare of its younger members rather than filing such PILs.
The review petitions, which are pending before the Court, challenge the 2018 verdict that held the traditional ban on women aged 10–50 entering the Sabarimala temple to be unconstitutional.
Former union minister V Muraleedharan said the state government was only trying to project that it had taken a U-turn on the issue of entry of young women into the Sabarimala temple.
In its response to the Apex Court’s queries, the government referred to its 2007 affidavit and stated that opinions of social reformers and religious scholars should be taken to arrive at a decision.
