JUDGMENT : K. V. Jayakumar, J. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , claiming the following reliefs: “(i) declare that the devotees and other officials as mentioned in Ext. P1 order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court be permitted to enter and have darshan of the principal deity at Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple from the Sopanam in front of the Srikovil. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing or compelling the respondents 2 to 4 to permit devotees with special pooja tickets to offer pooja and have darshan for the principal deity at Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple from the Sopanam in front of the Srikovil.” 2. The petitioner, Sri. Padmakumar P., states that he is an ardent devotee of Lord Ayyappa and that he undertakes the pilgrimage to Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple with utmost piety and devotion. He contends that, earlier, ticket holders for special poojas were permitted to have darshan of Lord Ayyappa from the Sopanam, in front of the Sreekovil. However, the said practice of permitting devotees who had taken tickets for special poojas to have darshan while standing in front of the Sopanam was discontinued during the COVID-19 pandemic in the year 2020. He further contends that the denial of entry into the Sopanam for special pooja ticket holders amounts to a violation of Article 25 of the Constitution of India , as well as the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 (for the sake of brevity, “TCHRI Act”). According to him, the Board is duty-bound to safeguard and preserve the performance of traditional rites and ceremonies of the temple. 3. The 2nd respondent, Travancore Devaswom Board, in its counter affidavit, has refuted the allegations and averments raised in the Writ Petition. It is stated therein that, earlier, when the number of devotees performing such special poojas was limited, and when the overall pilgrim footfall was comparatively low, special pooja ticket holders were permitted to stand in front of the Sopanam for a more convenient darshan. It is specifically contended that such a practice does not constitute a customary or essential religious practice. It is specifically contended that such a practice does not constitute a customary or essential religious practice. It is further stated that, at present, the number of devotees offering such special poojas has increased considerably and, therefore, permitting entry to all such ticket holders would result in serious obstruction and overcrowding within the Sopanam enclosure. It is further stated that the Thanthri, Melsanthi, Sannidhanam Santhis, and other assisting personnel are required to move frequently in and out of the Sreekovil and the Sopanam for the due performance of temple rituals, and that the presence of a congregation of vazhipadu ticket holders within such a restricted area would obstruct their free movement. It is also contended in the counter affidavit that the presence of devotees in the immediate vicinity of the conveyor belt poses a risk of accidents, mishaps, theft, and altercations. Therefore, for reasons of safety, security, and effective administration, devotees are strictly prohibited from approaching the conveyor belt area. Such presence would also adversely affect the functioning of essential employees of the Board and other personnel stationed near the Sopanam and Sreekovil in the discharge of their managerial and ritual duties. 4. Sri. Govind G. Nair, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the denial of entry into the Sopanam to devotees who have taken tickets for special poojas interferes with an essential religious practice and ought not to have been imposed by the Board. The rituals connected with the darshan of the devotees who offer special poojas such as Udayasthamanapooja, padipooja, etc., would be completed only by darshan in front of the Sopanam of the Temple. The learned counsel further pointed out that in Ext.P1 order of the Honourable Apex Court, it is stated that entry to the Sopanam cannot be denied to the devotees holding special pooja tickets. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner is entitled to a declaration that the devotees with special pooja tickets shall be permitted to enter the Sopanam of the temple in front of the Sreekovil in view of Ext. P1 judgment of the Apex Court. 5. In response, Sri. G. Biju, the learned Standing Counsel, would submit that the entry and the darshan in Sopanam of Sabarimala is not an essential religious practice, and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. P1 judgment of the Apex Court. 5. In response, Sri. G. Biju, the learned Standing Counsel, would submit that the entry and the darshan in Sopanam of Sabarimala is not an essential religious practice, and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that due to the large inflow of devotees to Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple, especially during the Mandala-Makaravilakku seasons, permitting the devotees’ entry into the Sopanam of the temple would cause serious hardships to the other devotees standing in a long queue. Moreover, the number of devotees offering special poojas in the temple has increased considerably. Therefore, it is not feasible to permit the devotees to enter the Sopanam for the darshan. 6. The learned Standing Counsel would also point out that the issue has already been considered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in DBA No. 169 of 2005, and the relief was disallowed. 7. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced and perused the materials placed on record. 8. The principal submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of Ext.P1 order of the Apex Court dated 05.01.2007 in SLP.Nos. 1985-1986/2006 preferred against the order dated 23.12.2005 of this Court in DBA No. 169 of 2005. It would be useful to extract the order of the Apex Court for easy reference: ORDER “Leave granted. On 15th of December, 2006 we had directed the parties to explore possibility for a solution with regard to the special queue for darshan at Sabarimala Temple. Pursuant to the said direction, the following persons/categories of persons have been identified by the parties, who should be admitted in the Sopanam Enclosure in front of the Sreekovil for darshan without causing any obstruction to the devotees standing in the general queue: A. (i) President and two Members of the Board. (ii) Statutory Commissioner (iii) Secretary of the Board. (iv) Sabarimala Devaswom Manager. (v) Sabarimala Devaswom Executive Officer and Assistant Executive. (vi) Chief Engineer of the Board (vii) Executive Engineer and Assistant Engineer stationed at Sabarimala. (viii) Bhandaram Special Officer. (ix) Sopanam officer. (x) Malikapuram Chief Priest and his two Assistants. (xi) Guest House Manager. (xii) Accommodation Officer. (xiii) Police Officials Posted at the Sannidhanam of the rank of superintendent of Police and above. (xiv) The Chief Coordinators numbering two. (xv) Essential Class IV staff for cleaning purposes. (viii) Bhandaram Special Officer. (ix) Sopanam officer. (x) Malikapuram Chief Priest and his two Assistants. (xi) Guest House Manager. (xii) Accommodation Officer. (xiii) Police Officials Posted at the Sannidhanam of the rank of superintendent of Police and above. (xiv) The Chief Coordinators numbering two. (xv) Essential Class IV staff for cleaning purposes. B.Special Commissioner appointed by the High Court. c. (i) Officials (numbering three) carrying Thanka Anki from Aranmula Temple for Mandala Pooja on the day on which Thanka Anki is brought to the Temple. Members of the Pandalam Palace and Officers of the Board carrying Thiruvabharanom on January 14 every year. ENTRY OF TICKET HOLDERS: (i) With regard to the Udayasthamana Pooja is booked till 2010. Cost of ticket is Rs.20,000/-. Since devotees have booked for this pooja years before, the family members limited to six may be permitted entry for three Poojas on that day. This pooja is not being performed during mandalam month. (ii) With regard to Padipooja, tickets have been booked till 2017 and cost for ticket is Rs.30,000/-. This pooja is not being performed during mandalam month. It is agreed between parties that six members of the family would be permitted during performance of this pooja. (iii) with regard to Nitya Pooja (Rs.2,500/-), Uccha Pooja (Rs.2,000/-) and Usha Pooja (Rs.501/-) the tickets for these poojas are issued a day before and these poojas are performed daily even during mandalam month. As far as these poojas are concerned, devotees who have booked the first five tickets each day for each of the above pooja may be allowed darshan. With regard to Entry of Guests and Dignitaries the following consensus in respect of the following category of persons has been reached between the parties: (i) VIPs. accompanied by a maximum of four persons. (ii) Former VIPs. With regard to Entry of Children and physically Disabled, the parties have agreed that the persons mentioned in this category shall be allowed darshan of the deity from the raised platform on the left side of the queue, without causing any obstruction to the devotees standing in the general queue and would be permitted to be accompanied by one person each. The above terms shall be subject to the condition that at no time will there be more than ten persons present in the Sopanam. The above terms shall be subject to the condition that at no time will there be more than ten persons present in the Sopanam. However, if there is any difficulty in working out the above arrangement, the parties would be at liberty to approach this Court within six months from today, whereafter no application for variation of this order shall be entertained. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.” 9. On going through Ext. P1 order of the Supreme Court of India, it is clear that the same was passed on the basis of the suggestions made by the parties and is subject to specific conditions and limitations. As per Ext. P1 order, darshan has been permitted to the categories mentioned therein, but only in a manner that does not cause any obstruction or hindrance to the devotees standing in the general queue. Insofar as special ticket holders are concerned, the permission for entry is not absolute, but is confined strictly to those devotees who had booked the poojas within a specified period. By way of illustration, such benefit was extended only to devotees who had booked Udayasthamana Pooja up to the year 2010 and Padipooja up to the year 2017, thereby clearly indicating that the said privilege is limited, regulated, and not of a continuing or unrestricted nature. 10. The second submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the darshan of devotees who have booked special poojas such as Padipooja and Udayasthamana Pooja can be said to be complete only if they are permitted to enter the Sopanam enclosure and have a clear and unobstructed darshan of Lord Ayyappa. According to the learned counsel, the Devaswom Board is under a statutory obligation to preserve and ensure the due performance of the rituals, customs, and usages of the temple in their traditional form. In support of this contention, the learned counsel has invited the attention of this Court to Sections 15A , 24, and 31 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, relying on the statutory mandate cast upon the Board to administer the temple in accordance with established practices and religious observances. Those sections are extracted hereunder: "15A. In support of this contention, the learned counsel has invited the attention of this Court to Sections 15A , 24, and 31 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, relying on the statutory mandate cast upon the Board to administer the temple in accordance with established practices and religious observances. Those sections are extracted hereunder: "15A. Duties of the Board .- It shall be the duty of the Board to perform the following functions, namely:- (i) to see that the regular traditional rites and ceremonies according to the practice prevalent in the religious institutions are performed promptly; (ii) to monitor whether the administrative officials and employees, and also the employees connected with religious rites are functioning properly; (iii) to ensure proper maintenance and upliftment of the Hindu religious institutions; (iv) to establish and maintain proper facilities in the temples for the devotees. 24. Maintenance of Devaswoms etc., out of Devaswom Fund .- The Board shall, out of the Devaswom Fund constituted under Section 25, maintain the Devaswoms mentioned in Schedule I, keep in a state of good repair the temples, buildings, and other appurtenances thereto, administer the said Devaswoms in accordance with recognised usages, make contributions to other Devaswoms in or outside the State and meet the expenditure for the customary religious ceremonies and may provide for the educational uplift, social and cultural advancement and economic betterment of the Hindu community. 31. Management of Devaswoms. - Subject to the provisions of this Part and the rules made thereunder, the Board shall manage the properties and affairs of the Devaswoms, both incorporated, and unincorporated as heretofore, and arrange for the conduct of the daily worship and ceremonies and of the festivals in every temple according to its usage.” 11. On careful consideration of the above statutory provisions, it is clear that the Board is duty-bound to ensure that the regular traditional rites and ceremonies are performed promptly in accordance with custom and usage. 12. In the instant case, the petitioner has failed to establish that the darshan of Lord Ayyappa while standing in front of the Sopanam enclosure is a customary religious practice. 13. The learned counsel has also invited the attention of this Court to Section 3 of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965 , which provides that the places of public worship be open to all sections and classes of Hindus. 13. The learned counsel has also invited the attention of this Court to Section 3 of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965 , which provides that the places of public worship be open to all sections and classes of Hindus. Section 3 of the Act of 1965 reads thus: “3. Places of public worship to be open to all sections and classes of Hindus. - Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force or any custom or usage or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law or any decree or order of court, every place of public worship which is open to Hindus generally or to any section or class thereof, shall be open to all sections and classes of Hindus; and no Hindu of whatsoever section or class shall, in any manner, be prevented, obstructed or discouraged from entering such place of public worship, or from worshipping or offering prayers thereat, or performing, any religious service therein, in the like manner and to the like extent as any other Hindu of whatsoever section or class may so enter, worship, pray or perform: Provided that in the case of a place of public worship which is a temple founded for the benefit of any religious denomination or section thereof, the provisions of this section shall be subject to the right of that religious denomination or section, as the case may be, to manage its own affairs in matters of religion.” 14. In Nar Hari Shastri v. Shri Badrinath Temple Committee , (1952) 1 SCC 689) the Apex Court observed that the right of Hindu to enter into the temple is not an absolute right. Further, it was observed that the trustees of a public temple can regulate the entry of the public to some sacred parts of the temple. Paragraph 24 of Nar Hari Shastri (Supra) reads thus: “24. This right of entry into a public temple is, however, not an unregulated or unrestricted right. It is open to the trustees of a public temple to regulate the time of public visits and fix certain hours of the day during which alone members of the public would be allowed access to the shrine. This right of entry into a public temple is, however, not an unregulated or unrestricted right. It is open to the trustees of a public temple to regulate the time of public visits and fix certain hours of the day during which alone members of the public would be allowed access to the shrine. The public may also be denied access to certain particularly sacred parts of the temple, e.g., the inner sanctuary or as it is said the “Holy of Holies” where the deity is actually located. Quite apart from these, it is always competent to the temple authorities to make and enforce rules to ensure good order and decency of worship and prevent overcrowding in a temple. Good conduct or orderly behaviour is always an obligatory condition of admission into a temple [Kalidas Jivram v. Gor Parjaram Hirji, ILR (1890) 15 Bom 309; Thackersey Dewraj v. Hurbhum Nursey, ILR (1883) 8 Bom 432] , and this principle has been accepted by and recognised in the Shri Badrinath Temple Act, Section 25 of which provides for framing of bye-laws by the temple committee inter alia for maintenance of order inside the temple and regulating the entry of persons within it.” 15. In view of the law laid down by Nar Hari Shastri (Supra), we are unable to accept the contentions of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner. 16. The Sopanam enclosure of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple is an extremely limited space situated immediately in front of the Sreekovil (Sanctum Sanctorum) of the main deity and is regarded as one of the most sacred and sensitive areas within the temple premises. The physical capacity of this enclosure is highly restricted, accommodating only about 6 to 10 persons at a time, without impeding movement or ritual activity. If holders of special pooja tickets are permitted the privilege of standing within the Sopanam for offering prayers, it would inevitably lead to serious obstruction and congestion, thereby causing considerable hardship and delay to the large number of devotees waiting in the queue for darshan. It is pertinent to note that during the Mandala-Makaravilakku season, the temple witnesses an extraordinary influx of devotees, often exceeding one lakh persons per day. In such peak conditions, approximately 60 to 80 devotees are required to complete darshan within a single minute, ensuring continuous and regulated movement of the queue. It is pertinent to note that during the Mandala-Makaravilakku season, the temple witnesses an extraordinary influx of devotees, often exceeding one lakh persons per day. In such peak conditions, approximately 60 to 80 devotees are required to complete darshan within a single minute, ensuring continuous and regulated movement of the queue. In these circumstances, having regard to the sheer volume of devotees and the necessity for maintaining an uninterrupted flow, permitting special pooja ticket holders to enter and remain within the Sopanam enclosure is neither feasible nor practicable. Any such concession would disrupt the systematic movement of devotees and adversely affect the overall darshan management. Moreover, the Devaswom Board is under a statutory and fiduciary obligation to ensure effective crowd management and to prevent any untoward incidents. The Sopanam enclosure, being in immediate proximity to the Sanctum Sanctorum, is also a functional passage through which the santhis and the officers and employees of the Board must regularly pass in the course of performing rituals and managing temple affairs. Any congestion or obstruction in this area would not only hinder the performance of essential religious duties but also pose significant safety risks. Therefore, strict regulation of entry into the Sopanam is imperative in the interest of orderly administration, safety, and preservation of the sanctity of the temple. 17. In that view of the matter, we hold that the Travancore Devaswom Board was well justified in restricting entry to the special pooja ticket holders into the Sopanam on the grounds of safety, security, crowd management and other related reasons. In light of the above discussions, we hold that the reliefs claimed in the writ petition cannot be granted. The Writ Petition is dismissed.