New Delhi: Submitting his argument in the review of Sabarimala temple practice in Kerala, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, told the Supreme Court on Thursday (April 9) that the restriction to the temple could not be reduced to gender discrimination and that there are some temples where even “men are not allowed”.The arguments came as the nine-judge constitutional bench, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, orally observed the need to refrain from practices that restrict access to places of worship on denominational grounds as it would be “dividing the society”. “There are instances of temples where men are not allowed. There are temples where male priests are under a mandate to wash the feet of women devotees,” Mehta said. Referring to the Pushkar Brahma temple “where married men are not allowed” and another in Kerala where men enter dressed as women, he said, “They go to beauty parlours, and their female family members help them dress in sarees and other attire. Only males go there.”“It is not a question of male-centric or female-centric religious beliefs. In the present case, it happens to be woman-centric,” he contended.Also read: The Solicitor General’s Quarrel With B.R. AmbedkarSenior advocate C.S. Vaidyanathan, appearing for the Nair Service Society, Ayyappa Seva Samajam, told the court that it cannot delve into the argument on whether it is an essential part of religion or not because the state is prohibited.“Secular authority of the state is prohibited from going into whether it is an essential part of religion, if this is the belief of the community, the judge is bound to accept that belief, it is not for him to sit in judgement on that belief,” he said, as quoted by Deccan Herald.The bench, however, observed that Hinduism’s inclusive spirit cannot be undermined by such exclusionary traditions. “…it will affect Hinduism negatively, and everyone must have access to every temple and mutt,” it reportedly said. The Supreme Court has been hearing petitions related to discrimination against women at religious places, including the review of Sabarimala judgement, and on the ambit and scope of religious freedom practised by multiple faiths.The bench also comprises Justices B.V. Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B. Varale, R. Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi.On denominational autonomyAdditional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj, supplementing Mehta’s arguments, pointed to the structure of religious rights and the role of denomination as such that the court cannot insist on non-vegetarian food in a temple that follows vegetarian traditions and “has no right to invade the rights of those believers.” He further referred to temples where liquor is offered as prasad, arguing that such practices cannot be overridden by individual choice.Nataraj focussed on the rights under Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian constitution, saying that while the former secures individual freedom of conscience and religious practice (right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion), Article 26 protects collective autonomy (freedom to manage religious affairs), and that both needed to be harmoniously interpreted.“Denomination”, he argued, must be understood in the Indian context as “sampradaya” (Sanskrit word for tradition), which is rooted in collective belief.Indirectly faulting the 2018 Sabarimala judgement, he pointed to other judgements like the Ram Janmabhoomi case where the top court recognised the distinct rights of a deity based on faith and belief of devotees.However, Justice Bagchi pointed out that where the existence or content of a practice is disputed, courts would necessarily have to adjudicate.The hearing will resume on April 15.