The bench said some of the parties have sought four weeks' time for filing their response to the PIL by Pune-based couple Yasmeen Zuber Ahmad Peerzade and Zuber Ahmad Nazir Ahmad Peerzade.
The PIL said that the ban on entry of Muslim women in mosques was "unconstitutional" and violative of fundamental rights to life, equality and gender justice.
Earlier, the apex court had asked the union ministries of Women and Child Welfare and Law and Justice and Minority Affairs and the National Commission for Women to file their responses to the plea by November 5, that is today.
It had also directed that the notices along with copies of the petition be served on the Maharashtra State Board of Wakf, Central Wakf Council and All India Muslim Personal Law Board.
The plea sought issuance of a direction to the government authorities and Muslim bodies to allow entry of Muslim women into mosques to offer namaz.
"Permit Muslim women to enter through the main door of mosques and have an Islamic right to visual and auditory access to the musalla (main sanctuary)," it said, adding that "any fatwa", restraining women from entering into mosques, of Muslim bodies be set aside.
It also said that the alleged customary tradition be held as "unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 (right to equality), 15 (gender justice) and 21 (right to life and liberty) of the Constitution".
Referring to constitutional provisions, the petitioners said there should not be any discrimination against any citizen of the country on the ground of religion, race, caste, sex and place of birth.
They added that a life of dignity and equality is the most sacrosanct fundamental right and a Muslim woman cannot be prohibited from entering a mosque.
The petitioners had told the court that the mosques in India were enjoying the benefits and grant extended to them by the State and hence they can be directed to allow entry of women inside mosques.
While issuing the notice, the Supreme Court had earlier said that it would hear the PIL only because of its judgment in the Sabarimala temple case.
On September 28 last year, a five-judge constitution bench headed by the then chief justice Dipak Misra, in a 4:1 verdict, had paved the way for entry of women of all ages into the Sabarimala temple in Kerala, saying the ban amounted to gender discrimination.
Business Standard has always strived hard to provide up-to-date information and commentary on developments that are of interest to you and have wider political and economic implications for the country and the world. Your encouragement and constant feedback on how to improve our offering have only made our resolve and commitment to these ideals stronger. Even during these difficult times arising out of Covid-19, we continue to remain committed to keeping you informed and updated with credible news, authoritative views and incisive commentary on topical issues of relevance.
We, however, have a request.
As we battle the economic impact of the pandemic, we need your support even more, so that we can continue to offer you more quality content. Our subscription model has seen an encouraging response from many of you, who have subscribed to our online content. More subscription to our online content can only help us achieve the goals of offering you even better and more relevant content. We believe in free, fair and credible journalism. Your support through more subscriptions can help us practise the journalism to which we are committed.
Support quality journalism and subscribe to Business Standard.