In the ongoing Sabarimala reference proceedings before a nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) submitted on Thursday that there is no restriction on women entering mosques to offer namaz, though it is not obligatory or preferable for them to join congregational prayers.
Senior Advocate MR Shamshad, appearing for the AIMPLB, made the submissions during the hearing on constitutional questions concerning the scope of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. Several writ petitions seeking women’s entry into mosques have been tagged with the Sabarimala reference case.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant sought factual clarity on the matter, asking whether Muslim women are allowed to enter mosques. Shamshad affirmed that there is a consensus across Islamic denominations that there is no ban on women from entering mosques. However, he clarified that while it is obligatory for men to join congregational namaz, it is not mandatory for women. Women receive the same religious reward by praying at home, and it is preferable for them to do so.
During the arguments by the AIMPLB counsel, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah interjected and asked him to elaborate that there is no dispute on women’s entry in mosques. He said, “You should elaborate for everybody’s consumption that right from the beginning, there is also no dispute and that it started from the holy Prophet himself.”
Shamshad agreed, stating, “Yes, my lords. The Prophet himself said, don’t stop women coming to the mosque. There is clarity on this. And many of those who have recorded the hadith in many volumes have recorded this narration that the Prophet instructed that don’t stop women coming to the mosque.”
The senior counsel added that if women choose to attend, they can participate in the congregation, but it is “not preferable” for them to do so regularly. Shamsahd added, “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.
When the CJI asked whether women are banned from being part of the congregation at mosques, the lawyer replied that there is no such ban. “If they are going to mosque, the purpose is to participate in congregation, and that is permitted,” he clarified.
On the question by Justice Nagarathna about whether this means that it is not mandated for women to attend a congregation, Shamsahd said that it is correct. He added that it is “not preferable” for a woman to attend the congregation in the mosque.
At this point, Justice Amanullah interjected by asking the lawyer to explain that the practical rationale behind this was family duties. He said, “Give the reason also. The reason was if everyone from the house goes then who will take care of the children??”
Sr. Adv. MR Shamshad begins his submissions.
— Bar and Bench (@barandbench) April 23, 2026
Shamshad: it is preferable that woman stays at home and gets the same religious reward as the man. But if woman wants to come to mosque, she can come. Women can be part of the congregation.
Justice Nagarathna: it is not mandated…
The AIMPLB counsel replied that there is objection to petitions seeking women’s entry in mosques to offer prayers. Regarding other pleas related to women entering mosques through the main door with full visual and auditory access to the Musalla or praying without barriers in mixed lines, he argued that there is no concept of ‘sanctum sanctorum’ in a mosques, but internal discipline must be followed once inside.
Beyond the women’s entry issue, the AIMPLB strongly contended that courts have wrongly applied the Essential Religious Practices (ERP) test to Islam. Shamshad argued that Islam is a thoroughly documented religion with clear categorisations of mandatory, recommended, and forbidden acts. Courts, he said, have often misapplied the test by treating only strictly mandatory practices as essential, relying on inaccurate translations of Hadith, and ignoring the broader scriptural framework.
He cited examples such as the Ismail Farooqui case, where a mosque was held not essential to Islam because namaz could be offered elsewhere, and a ruling allowing termination of a Muslim Army personnel for keeping a beard. Justice Nagarathna observed during the hearing that declaring a mosque non-essential raises serious questions under Article 25.
The submissions came on the eighth day of hearings before the bench Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice BV Nagarathna, Justice MM Sundresh, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice Aravind Kumar, Justice Augustine George Masih, Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. The nine-judge bench is examining the interplay between religious freedom and equality in the context of practices across faiths, including the Sabarimala temple entry restrictions.
