The Sabarimala case was referred to a larger bench of seven judges by the Supreme Court in a majority judgment on Thursday.
The judges in favour were Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Indu Malhotra and AM Khanwilkar.
In the majority verdict, Chief Justice of India, Justices Indu Malhotra and A M Khanwikar said that the restriction of women into religious places is not limited to Sabarimala temple and a seven-judge bench will decide all such religious issues relating to the temple, entry of women in mosques and practice of female genital mutilation in the Dawoodi Bohra community.
The other two judges on the bench Justices R F Nariman, D Y Chandrachud gave a dissenting verdict in the case and stuck to their earlier stand of quashing the custom which barred entry of women in 10-50 year age group and said they have entertained bonafide plea as women were discriminated on the physiological feature.
Till then, the Sabarimala review petitions will remain pending until the issue is decided by larger Bench.
The September 28, 2018 judgment of the Supreme Court, which had lifted the ban that prevented women and girls between the age of 10 to 50 from entering the Sabarimala Temple, was not stayed by the apex court today.
Thus the SC's earlier order of allowing women into the temple will remain in force till a seven-judge bench hears the matter afresh and gives its ruling. This bench has to be constituted by the Chief Justice designate SA Bobde.
From our archives - The late TN Seshan on rights, gender and Sabarimala
On the question of whether there is any stay on the previous judgment, a lawyer associated with the case said, “Since the majority judgment was silent on any stay on earlier judgment, the SC's earlier order of allowing women of all ages into Sabarimala Ayyappa temple will remain in force till a seven-judge bench hears the matter afresh and gives its ruling.”
But the petitioners also stated that they will have to file a fresh application in the case if the detailed verdict is silent on the issue of stay. Since the present CJI Gogoi left with a day to retire, the new seven-judge will be constituted only when the CJI designate S A Bobde takes over as CJI on November 18.
"Endeavour of petitioners was to revive the debate on religion and faith," CJI Ranjan Gogoi said while reviewing the Sabarimala verdict.
"Restrictions on women in religious places not at Sabarimala alone, prevalent in other religions also," he further added.
CJI Gogoi favoured examination of such religious issues by a bench of seven judges.
"SC should evolve a common policy on religious places like Sabarimala," said the CJI while referring to restrictions on the entry of women into mosques.
"A larger bench will decide religious issues relating to Sabarimala, entry of women into mosques, practice of female genital mutilation," said CJI.
The majority judgment said that many similar issues come into play in the cases on rights of Muslim women to pray, female genital mutilation in the Dawoodi Bohra community, and others and these may need to be referred to a higher bench.
The entry of women in mosques, Parsi women case are also similar to issues in Sabarimala review, the court observed.
On September 28, 2018, a five-judge bench headed by then chief justice Dipak Misra had delivered a 4:1 ruling setting aside restrictions on the entry of women of menstrual age at the temple.
Temple custodians argue that women of menstrual age are prohibited from offering prayers as the deity there, Ayyappa, is a celibate.
Situated on a hilltop, the temple is dedicated to the Hindu celibate deity Ayyappan, who is believed to be the son of Shiva and Mohini – the feminine incarnation of Vishnu.
Reactions to the verdict
The head priest of the Sabarimala temple Kandararu Rajeevaru welcomed the Supreme Court's decision. "It's a decision that gives hope and confidence to Ayyappa devotees. It's good that the court has observed that Ayyappa devotees should be seen as a separate group. We are of the view that religion and law should not be mixed," he said.
From our archive - Sabarimala verdict: The reality
Shashi Tharoor, the high-profile MP from Thiruvananthapuram, too welcomed the Supreme Court's decision "to refer the vexed Sabarimala issue to a larger bench".
Congress leader Ramesh Chennithala warned that "if the government tries to forcibly facilitate entry of women, it will trigger a crisis."
Former CM Oommen Chandy claimed that the "UDF's stance of reacting to the issue within the limits of law has been proven right through the Supreme Court decision. "
He said it was now up to the state government to take steps to ensure a smooth pilgrimage season.
BJP former president Kummanam Rajasekharan also urged the state government to show restraint "as the Supreme Court has not taken a final decision on the matter".
"The (state) government should not use the lack of clarity regarding stay in the case to facilitate the entry of women," he stressed.
The split decision came on as many as 65 petitions - including 56 review petitions and four fresh writ petitions and five transfer pleas - which were filed after the apex court verdict of September last year sparked violent protests in Kerala.
The petitioners included the National Ayyappa Devotees (Women) Association, the Nair Service Society, and the All Kerala Brahmins Association.
The hearing on the petitions lasted only for a day after which the court reserved verdict in the case.
The Sabarimala temple reopens on November 17.