Sabarimala Reference : Live Updates From Supreme Court 9-Judge Bench [Day 14]
Hey there! So, this Supreme Court hearing about Sabarimala is super important for CLAT because it digs into fundamental rights. Basically, a 9-judge bench is looking at some really complex questions about religion, customs, and equality. They're not just reviewing the old Sabarimala verdict, but figuring out how things like Article 17 (abolishing untouchability) or Article 25 (freedom of religion) apply to religious practices. This could set precedents for how courts handle religious freedom versus social reform. For your exam, remember how these articles interact and the tests the court uses to balance them.
Today is the 14th day of arguments before the 9-judge bench of the Supreme Court in the Sabarimala reference.
Apart from CJI Surya Kant, the Bench comprises Justice BV Nagarathna, Justice MM Sundresh, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice Aravind Kumar, Justice Augustine George Masih, Justice Prasanna B Varale, Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.
Not Reviewing Sabarimala Verdict In Reference; Only Considering Constitutional Questions, Says Supreme Court
'There Can't Be Untouchability For 3 Days A Month', Justice Nagarathna On Article 17 Application In Sabarimala Case
India Not Patriarchal Or Gender Stereotyped As The West Understands : Solicitor General To Supreme Court In Sabarimala Reference
Reports from Day 2 Hearing are given below :
How Can Non-Devotees Of Lord Ayyappa Challenge Sabarimala Custom? Supreme Court Asks
Sabarimala Reference | Judicial Review Over Superstitious Practices Not Barred, Says Supreme Court In Hearing
Sabarimala Reference | Centre Questions Verdicts Decriminalising Adultery & Homosexuality For Applying 'Constitutional Morality'
Reports from Day 3 Hearing are given below :
Excluding Other Denominations From Temples Will Affect Hinduism : Supreme Court In Sabarimala Reference Hearing
Sampradayas Attached To Temple Must Be Followed While Visiting It: Supreme Court In Sabarimala Reference Hearing
There Are Temples Where Only Women Can Go : Centre To Supreme Court In Sabarimala Reference
Reports from Day 4 Hearing are given below :
Difficult To Declare Belief Of Millions Wrong : Supreme Court In Sabarimala Reference Hearing
Sabarimala Reference | Can't Hollow Out Religion In The Name Of Social Reform, Supreme Court Says In Hearing
Sabarimala | Visit Of Fertile Women Antithetical To Deity's Identity; They Can Visit Other Ayyappa Temples : TDB To Supreme Court
'Constitutional Morality' In Religious Matters Like A Bull In A China Shop : Singhvi Tells Supreme Court In Sabarimala Reference
Women In South Avoid Temples During Menstruation As Matter Of Belief : Lawyer Tells Supreme Court In Sabarimala Reference
Sabarimala Reference | Correct Test Is If Religious Belief Is Bona Fide, Not If It's Essential : Rajeev Dhavan To Supreme Court
Sabarimala Reference | If Believer Prevented From Touching Deity Only Due To Birth, Can't Constitution Intervene? Supreme Court Asks
Sabarimala Reference | Supreme Court Debates Essential Religious Practice Test, Denominational Rights vs State Reform Power
Can't Lay Down Blanket Rules On State Interference In Religion For Social Reform : Supreme Court In Sabarimala Reference Hearing
Sabarimala Reference | How Can Judgment Be Challenged In Writ? Supreme Court Questions Plea Against Dawoodi Bohra Practice
Can't Take Information From 'WhatsApp University': Justice Nagarathna
No Restriction On Women To Enter Mosque For Namaz; ERP Tests Wrongly Applied To Islam : AIMPLB Tells Supreme Court
Sabarimala Reference | Art 25(2)(b) Mentions Throwing Open Of Only Temples Since Caste System Is Not In Other Religions : Justice Nagarathna
'Don't Argue Like This' : Supreme Court Rebukes Lawyer In Sabarimala Reference Hearing
'We Can't Be Part Of Annihilation Of Religion; Let's Not Open Age Old Customs' : Supreme Court In Sabarimala Reference Hearing
Women Who Are True Devotees Of Lord Ayyappa Won't Go To Sabarimala Till They Attain 50 Years : Supreme Court
'Morality' Can't Be Interpreted As Societal Morality As It Can Be Based On Prejudices : Indira Jaising In Sabarimala Reference
'What Good Came Out Of Your PIL?' : Supreme Court Questions NGO Which Filed Plea For Sabarimala Women Entry
'How Can Right To Conscience Be Taken Away By Marriage?' : Supreme Court Questions Excommunication Of Parsi Women Marrying Outside Faith
Constitution Didn't Intend To Give Religious Denomination Higher Rights Than Believer : Darius Khambata In Sabarimala Reference
What Happens To Indian Civilisation If Every Religious Practice Is Questioned In Courts? Supreme Court In Sabarimala Reference
Female Genital Mutilation Affects Health; Can't Be Compared With Circumcision : Supreme Court In Sabarimala Reference Hearing
SC Shouldn't Have Totally Struck Down Law Banning Excommunication : Supreme Court In Sabarimala Reference Hearing
Follow this page for today's live updates :
Hegde: when mrs ambedkar was very ill and wanted to go to...discrimination has not gone away. today we have the Bhimagranta, which is the constitution of india where we place our hope.
J Nagarathna: they were all great devotees of the lord. that is the quality of the believer.
Hegde: the lord doesn't turn away half a believer
Hegde: it is my respectful submission that in matter of right rituals, within the sanctum santrum it may have full play but beyond that it can't be. the principle comes from my home town Upudi where temple was forbiddden for lower caste worshippers. when the worshiper wasn't allowed, he stayed outside and continued to do bhajan and the idol turned to his side and gave him the worship. it is not the god which discriminate but man does. same is with jagannath temple.
Hegde: custom as a source of law, and enforced by law- ultimately what the court did in 5 judge? a manmade rule in a constitutional scheme can't survive. there can't be a manmade law that women will have to stay out for 40 years but if it was said that on those says, please don't come- an exclusion so whole which denies the right to worshippers runs foul to the constitution
Hedge: the constitution protects religious autonomy in religious matters and not secular matters. article 13 supplies the bridge to the extent of inconsistency with part III.
Hegde: rationalist views are recognised in the constitution in preamble, article 25(1) with right to conscience, article 28, Article 51A(h), 25(2)(b),
Hegde: in this courtroom I can proclaim to be a Muslim and in lunch say Christ is my savior and at night, I say Bhagavat Gita is the only thing
Hegde: rationalist view is to maintain a distance. when you go to a worship, follow...
first constitution is supreme, its text is the only guide. the authority of this court rests on the constitution. I have defined rationalists [referring to the submissions]
J Amanullah: if this is your understand that I can a hindu in morning, muslim at lunch and christian at night then, profess, propagate and practice has to be same religion, it is absurdity.
Hegde: denominational rights are collective not necessarily having juridical identity. when they spoke in article 25 that it would be subject to other articles and to other provisions then you take that and collect and congrestate. what else? you own institution, to get property and to manage own affairs in matter of religion.
against whom you claim it? you also claim against orthodoxy of your own religion. if your religious doctrine, I don't intend to deingrate anyone. suppose one religion says there is only one god and prophet, but religious denomination says there are subsequent prophet, then with regard to orthodoxy of your religion, you can manage your own affairs.
Hegde: what happens when you bunch together as collective? people who sit together and worship can form a denomination. there are people like Arya Samaji. .
Hegde: a professor of constitution in a deeply divided society said- you represent and embrace the competing vision of the state. the incremental constitutional toolbox was ambigious words etc
for example-cow slaugther- people in constituent assembly said give us a clear line. it was put in directive principles as dr ambedkar's quest for scientific development. this incremental approach came even in articles 25 and 26.
these two articles firstly says everybody is equally entitled, everybody posses the freedom of conscience. whatever it says. and the right to freely process and practice. note there is a significant omission of a pronoun- it doesn't say their religion, or religion of choice, or birth- theoritical wake up as Hindu, be a Muslim at lunch and become a Christian at night.