Sabarimala Case Supreme Court Highlights: Courts can’t decide whether particular practice is essential to religion, review petitioners tell SC

Hearing concludes for the day

Vaidyanathan: Denominations should have the same right as minorities is the submission

Vaidyanathan: 25 (2) (b) talks only in regard to Hindu public temples not in regard to places of worship of other religion

CJI: We will wait for another 5-10 minutes, please wind up

Vaidyanathan: Please see (refers to judgment) "No outside authority has any right to say that these are not essential parts of religion"

Vaidyanathan explains the 'constitutional relationship' between 25 (2) (b) and 26 (b)

Vaidyanathan now addresses the court on scope and extent of judicial review with regard to religious practice

Bench: According to you constitutional morality cannot be used for interpretation?

Vaidyanathan: Yes

Article 16 deals with equality of opportunity in public employment. Article 16 (5) says-Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any law which provides that the incumbent of an office in connection with the affairs of any religious or denominational institution or any member of the governing body thereof shall be a person professing a particular religion or belonging to a particular denomination.

Vaidyanathan: This is not treated as a secular office. It is treated differently

Vaidyanathan: 25 to 28..... stand on a slightly different footing

Vaidyanathan: Article 17, 23, 24 form a separate group

Vaidyanathan: 25 (2) (b) expressly creates a kind of an exclusion only in regard to the individual rights under article 25 and not in regard to the denominational right under article 26

Vaidyanathan: Individual may have a different point of view but his point of view cannot be allowed to prevail in a manner that the collective beliefs is destroyed. The religious denomination beliefs are destroyed because individual rights is asserted.

Vaidyanathan: There can be temples which are not public temples

Bench: You admit that 25 2 has to be read along with 26

Vaidyanathan: No. I Don't

Vaidyanathan: We don't have a system of pope, archbishop

Bench: There are Hindus who can belong to several sampradayas they can visit several temples but if the Hindus want to visit a particular temple the sampradaya which is attached to the temple must be followed.

Vaidyanathan: In Sabarimala no distinction is made. There is no bar to Christians and Muslims entering. They can also go but they must have the faith and belief in the divinity of Ayyappa.

Vaidyanathan: With greatest respect I appeal to kindly overrule this part the test in regard to religious denomination which has been laid down as if it is mandatory.... I respectfully submit its incorrect

Vaidyanathan now makes submissions on religious denomination

Vaidyanathan: We have in our history had institutions exclusively for girls, exclusively for boys . There are today a large number of co-ed institutions but nobody wanted to make it mandatory or to enable parliament legislature to make laws which make it compulsory that it should be co-ed. Therefore that part was kept out. I am just giving an analogy

Court assembles after break

Court rises for lunch break

Bench: Doesn't depend on constitution giving it or taking away

Vaidyanathan: Though we are not worshipping the idol, we are worshipping the...Ultimately it is the supreme being that we worship but through the form of this idol. This has been in our Sampradaya this has been in our sanatana dharma which has been well established well recognised.

ASG Nataraj concludes his submissions

ASG: If the deity has a particular manifestation to follow a particular practice or custom that transfer into the right of devotees as well

ASG: Once a practice is essential to religious the role of court is limited

ASG: An example-A person says that I want to have non-vegetarian food, he can't go to denominational temple and say yes i have the right to particular non-vegetarian food

He has no such right to invade the rights of those believers under that denomination or religion. Similarly, liquor. In some temples, liquor is given as prasadam. Tomorrow, one cannot object by saying that liquor should not be given as teertha or prasadam in a particular temple.

ASG: When there is diversity, you must respect everyone, the right of every individual has to be respected.

ASG: We need not define what would be constitutional morality, what is morality, what is standard of morality we need not define because constitutional itself guides us to take it as public morality and that has to be followed

Bench: When it is a conflict between the state right under 25 and the right of a denomination that is where the question of essential religious practice comes in

ASG: All the articles under constitution especially part 3 will have to be harmoniously construed. Nothing can be read in isolation

ASG: Next i am coming to the scope of matters of religion

ASG: A group of people they may follow a particular sampradaya and if that according to their belief, collective belief, that has to be protected It is with reference to article 25 1

ASG: Denomination is an English word that is employed in constitution but when it comes to Indian landscape it is called sampradaya

Bench: Are you putting it in a very plain term that whatever is your internal religious belief the external manifestation is also protected

ASG: Yes

Bench: How can it be? It is fine internally, yes, that is yours. The moment your external manifestation affects the rights of others, then how can it be protected? That has to be tested.

ASG: Subject to Part III. Part III immediately steps in.

Bench: We cannot say that whatever internal belief you carry, you externalise it and that will be protected.

ASG: Both can be regulated by invoking 25 (2)

ASG: 25 and 26 are two facets of same coin, religious right. One is relating to an individual right, the other one relating to institutional right to form association

ASG Nataraj: Religious practices are to be internally assessed....whether it is essential religious practice has limited scope

ASG Nataraj reads written submissions

SG Mehta: My arguments is confined to questions framed

SG Mehta begins arguments

SG Mehta: Sabarimala judgment proceeds on assumption that men are superior...and women on a lower pedestal

Before Day 3 hearing commences, Supreme Court is holding full court reference in memory of former judge Justice SP Kurdukar

Responding to Mehta's submission, the court stated that it has the right and jurisdiction in judicial review to hold what is superstition, and what will follow is for the legislature how to deal with it.

A nine judge bench headed by CJI Surya Kant will resume hearing the petitions relating to discrimination against women at religious places, including the Sabarimala temple, and the scope of religious freedom under the Constitution.