This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-50415356

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Sabarimala temple: India court to review ruling on women's entry Sabarimala temple: India court to review ruling on women's entry
(32 minutes later)
India's Supreme Court has agreed to review its landmark judgement allowing women of menstruating age to enter a controversial Hindu shrine.India's Supreme Court has agreed to review its landmark judgement allowing women of menstruating age to enter a controversial Hindu shrine.
A five-judge bench last year ruled that keeping women out of the Sabarimala shrine in the southern state of Kerala was discriminatory.A five-judge bench last year ruled that keeping women out of the Sabarimala shrine in the southern state of Kerala was discriminatory.
The verdict had led to massive protests in the state. The verdict led to massive protests in the state.
Women who had tried to enter the shrine were either sent back or, in some cases, even assaulted. Women who tried to enter the shrine were either sent back or, in some cases, even assaulted.
This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly. Please refresh the page for the fullest version. The move is likely to anger women who fought hard to win the right to enter the temple.
If you want to receive Breaking News alerts via email, or on a smartphone or tablet via the BBC News App then details on how to do so are available on this help page. You can also follow @BBCBreaking on Twitter to get the latest alerts. Hinduism regards menstruating women as unclean and bars them from participating in religious rituals.
Many temples bar women during their periods and many devout women voluntarily stay away, but Sabarimala had a blanket ban on all women between the ages of 10 and 50.
What did the court say?
On Thursday the five-judge bench, responding to dozens of review petitions challenging the court's landmark judgement last year, said that the matter would now be hard by a larger bench.
In doing so, however, it did not stay its earlier order. This means means women can still legally enter the temple.
But it's not going to be easy for them.
A temple official welcomed the ruling and appealed to women to stay away.
Women trying to enter the temple after the verdict last year were attacked by mobs blocking the way.
Many checked vehicles heading towards the temple to see if any women of a "menstruating age" - deemed to be those aged between 10 and 50 years - were trying to enter.
Why is the temple so controversial?
Part of the violent opposition to the Supreme Court order to reverse the temple's historical ban on women was because protesters felt the ruling goes against the wishes of the deity, Lord Ayappa, himself.
Hinduism regards menstruating women as unclean and bars them from participating in religious rituals.
But while most Hindu temples allow women to enter as long as they are not menstruating, the Sabarimala temple is unusual in that it was one of the few that did not allow women in a broad age group to enter at all.
Hindu devotees say that the ban on women entering Sabarimala is not about menstruation alone - it is also in keeping with the wish of the deity who is believed to have laid down clear rules about the pilgrimage to seek his blessings.
Every year, millions of male devotees trek up a steep hill, often barefoot, to visit the shrine. They also undertake a rigorous 41-day fast, abstaining from smoking, alcohol, meat, sex and contact with menstruating women before they begin the journey.
Women's rights campaigners who appealed to the Supreme Court to lift the ban said that this custom violated equality guaranteed under India's constitution. They added that it was prejudiced against women and their right to worship.
Supporters of the ban argued that the practice had been in effect for centuries, and there was no need to change it now.