Sabarimala Case Highlights: Entry must be decided based on rights of temple devotees, Centre tells Supreme Court

Hearing concludes for the day

SG Mehta: It is a fight between silent majority versus vocal minority

CJI: If it was to be dismissed at the threshold should have been in 2006.

Sr adv Indira Jaising: If your lordships feels there is no need for an address on merit kindly discharge the reference

SG Mehta: Whenever we talk about one fundamental rights it affects more than one individual. My right to speak affects my learned senior friends right not be offended. I should not speak anything that is derogatory to him...The right to entry into temple will have to tested in the context of right of devotees who feel particular class of persons should not be permitted to enter. That is never examined at all. You can say that one or few individuals want to go but has anyone examined the corresponding fundamental right under article 25

SG Mehta: Essential religious practices doctrine inserted wrongly in the judgment

SG Mehta: Once a religious belief or faith question comes and someone says this is my faith my religion permits and this is widely practiced, I don't have to prove that this is my faith and belief. I don't have to prove it is part of 25. It will be for those who are opposing it to prove

Bench: Our approach is better we write our separate judgment but don't criticise other judgments.

SG Mehta: That's a healthy thing, happens only in America

SG Mehta: Your lordships are a court of plenary jurisdiction, a court of record. Your lordships will have to pronounce upon validity, correctness of these observations

SG Mehta is reading a judgment

CJI: Who is this Segal (Jeffrey A. Segal in Justice DY Chandrachud's concurring opinion)? He has almost been referred here like second Ambedkar...........But judgment is not under question

CJI: Where are you reading

SG Mehta: Para 143, page 68

SG Mehta: I urge your lordships to read this and examine whether this can be a statement of law in Indian jurisprudence

SG Mehta: Diversity is respected, pluralism is respected. How does it become constitutional morality. It may be a constitutional principle.

SG Mehta: Host of judgment saying that the term morality in 25, 19 is societal morality

SG Mehta refers to Naz Foundation v. Govt of NCT of Delhi

SG Mehta (referring to a judgment): Constitutional morality means the morality which the parliament will ultimately revere

SG Mehta: I am on constitutional morality because that is now started being used as a tool for judicial review

Court rises for lunch break, arguments to continue after break

Justice B V Nagarathna: In Indian society what was considered to be immoral or obscene is no longer considered immoral. This is the problem in India. The standard which were there in 1950s are not there.

SG Mehta: I respectfully agree

Justice B V Nagarathna: It is said that standards of 1950s is narrow mindedness. It is not...Criticism now is that it is narrow mindedness, myopic, old fashioned etc. This is the problem of Indian society today.

SG Mehta: Sabarimala judgment says individual freedom dignity will take precedence over social interest

SG Mehta: Morality is understood in the context of societal morality that society will evolve and concepts of morality will change with evolution of each generation

SG Mehta: There is an intrinsic guidance in the debates of the constituent assembly

SG Mehta: Your lordships can be assured that I am not going to read every part of it

SG Mehta: All of us have knowledge of religion which is maybe only 1% of what actually the religion is

SG Mehta: Constitutional morality is never a ground for judicial review

Bench: It is very subjective

Bench: Constitutional morality is constitutional dharma

SG Mehta: Constitutional morality can neither be restrictor or broader because it has no existence under the constitutional scheme

SG Mehta is reading judgment

SG Mehta refers to Bijoy Emmanuel v state of Kerala

Bench: Why are we trying to interpret article 25 26 where the language is very clear

SG Mehta: There is a dispute

CJI: 25 and 26 are to be examined in light of constitution granting constitutional protection to religion, religious bodies. That protection has to be seen from the angle that if there is a action by the state to intervene

SG Mehta reads the definition of denomination provided in the judgment

SG Mehta: The court (in the judgment referred) decided what is the meaning, as per the court, of the denomination.

SG Mehta: State will not enter into if we don't want religion to interfere with the state. State also will not interfere with the religion.

SG Mehta: Selection of pujari is a secular activity that is the problem

SG Mehta: Even in public temple appointment of pujari who requires expertise, qualifications can never be left to the government. It is a matter of faith had belief that this is how our religion has progresses, we would trust a particular person who has the qualification

SG Mehta refers to 'most important judgment' Seshammal and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu

SG Mehta: Dargah committee is followed, I am not reading it

Justice BV Nagarathna: Solicitor, the approach of the court in such matters also must be to determine essential religious practice from the lens of the philosophy of the particular religion. You can't apply some other religion and say, this is not an essential religious practice.

SG Mehta: Would the court examine adjudicate that this is the particular philosophy of particular religion

Bench: If witchcraft is considered as a part of religious practice.

Your argument is it would be up to legislature to prohibit witchcraft and regulate any practice.

SG Mehta: I am asking myself How would this court decide what is superstitious practice. The answer is not for the court to decide

SG Mehta: The secular court would sit in judicial review over the faith and belief system and decide whether your particular belief is an essential part if my religion is correct or not

SG Mehta: One more aspect that your lordships may notice it is not on merits. I read three judgments. All three judgments have one common aspect, the person who is affected filed the petition

SG Mehta resumes his submissions

Sr adv Indira Jaising: I am in complete disagreement with the submissions made by solicitor general

CJI: Mr Mehta you start

Dhawan: I have no difficulty in packing up and going home

Dhawan: I will make the oral argument and refer to my written submissions

SG Mehta: I have read submissions of all. Mr Dhawan submissions are more contradicting the remaining submissions

Senior advocate Rajeev Dhawan: I have great reservations on what solicitor argued yesterday

Bench assembles

SG Mehta will continue his submissions on Day 2 of hearing in Sabarimala case

Over the reference to untouchability, Justice BV Nagarathna said that there cannot be a three day untouchability every month for women.

“Speaking as a woman I can say there can’t be three day untouchability every month and on the fourth day there is no untouchability. Let us go by the hard realities…. speaking as a woman, Article 17 cannot apply for three days, and on the fourth today, there is no untouchability,” Justice Nagarathna said.

A nine judge bench headed by CJI Surya Kant will resume hearing the pleas concerning discrimination against women at religious places, including the Sabarimala temple.