Sabarimala Reference : Live Updates From Supreme Court 9-Judge Bench [Day 16]
Hey there, CLAT aspirants! Here's why the ongoing Sabarimala reference is crucial for your prep. The Supreme Court's 9-judge bench is on day sixteen, discussing broad constitutional questions about religious practices and social reform, not just reviewing the previous verdict. What this really means is they're balancing fundamental rights like Article 14 on equality and Article 17 against untouchability, with freedom of religion under Articles 25 and 26. They're debating the 'essential religious practice' test and state intervention, touching on issues like the Dawoodi Bohra excommunication. So for your CLAT prep, remember the interplay between individual rights, denominational autonomy, and constitutional morality.
Today is the 16th 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 :
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
Sabarimala Reference | Social Reform May Necessitate Scrutiny Of Religious Practices; Proportionality Test Can Be Used : Lawyers To Supreme Court
Sabarimala Reference | Social Reform May Necessitate Scrutiny Of Religious Practices; Proportionality Test Can Be Used : Lawyers To Supreme Court
Avoid Interpretation Silencing Reformist Voices Within Religion : Mohan Gopal In Sabarimala Reference
Follow this page for today's live updates :
Gopal: suppose we didn't have rights article 25 and 26, there can be a question would it be included in article 19(1)
J Bagchi: we have done reverse diving-we said right to expression includes right to information so definitely includes conscience
Gopal: J Chandrachud in electoral bond said there might be some hierarcy of rights, etc- I don't agree. when you interpret the articles of the constitution, you don't review it from the tool which are used to assess legislative action.
there is a distinction-this freedom under article 25 is a subjective freedom, it is laterally available but laterally you assure the other citizen of the respect for their rights. how do you practice equality, tolerance- the other people may not be exercise article 25(1)
Gopal: all places of worship doesn't follow a uniform pattern- keeping this in mind there may be occasion where mylords would have to do a prima facie evaluation. CJI said when initial burden is discharged, the person would have to justify how is that justiciable.
whenever appropriate, mylords would differ.
J Nagarathna: usually when there is an encroachment or invasion into that the question would then arise
Gopal: the judgments in relation to conjunction of fundamental rights in Cooper, Menaka Gandhi etc don't operate in this sphere. in the very nature of things, the right to religion is contrarian to the principle of reason in article 14. these dimensions can't be tested with secularism.
articles 25 and 26 are unique provisions. article 25 says subject to other parts- the purpose of other provision can be divided into 3-
-the rights which follow article 25- 26, 27, and 28-they process freedom and also the man who created an endownment.
J Nagarathan; they are manifestations of these rights
J Bagchi: by that logic, articles 29 and 30 would also come
Gopal: when you read these rights, the landscape is very different against matters where you enforce right against the state
J Nagarathna: that is the why religion can be preserved in this country
Gopal: power is being conferred to denomination, or they will cause detriment to the rights- these are assumptions which we can't start with. mylords can also urge that denominations can exercise freedom in the reasonable matter.
on judicial review- since this is such a previous fundamental rights under articles 25 and 26, please don't divest your rights here because its the most sacred rights
J Varale: it may not be possible in reality always.
Gopal: I certainly can't rule out the possibility that mylords will be asked to adjudicate some religious practice which is abhorrent.
J Varale: there can't be handsoff approach
Gopal; no mylords, i am just requesting but keep it always available.
the faith of the believer and the legal adjudication of right- faith of a believer is subjective and courts can't review it. it is difficult to review acts related to conscience. however, if suppose a person were to assert...
J Bagchi: there is a difference between judicial review and judicial adjudication. the state of mind has always being a matter of judicial review. on a merit or value judgment, it may not be possible.
Gopal: it is through an evidenciary process where basic beliefs are set out to consider what is the injury, certainly courts have jurisdiction. what I meant is beyond that state of mind.
J Sundresh: individual right vis a vis the denominational right can't be treated at par when both are traced in article 25(1)- individual right to practice and profess is as good as the collective. the logical applies when individual tries to interfere with the right of the denomination
Gopal: an individual can profess and propagate by himself, he can write and speak about it. we have number of such individuals, perfectly legitimate under article 25(1). election of becoming a member of denomination is under article 25 but the moment you become a member, you trace your rights with the denomination.
J Sundresh: individual right vis a vis the denominational right can't be treated at par when both are traced in article 25(1)- individual right to practice and profess is as good as the collective. the logical applies when individual tries to interfere with the right of the denomination
Gopal: an individual can profess and propagate by himself, he can write and speak about it. we have number of such individuals, perfectly legitimate under article 25(1). election of becoming a member of denomination is under article 25 but the moment you become a member, you trace your rights with the denomination.
Gopal: once you are a denomination, you subscribe to a fundamental faith. when you are a member of the denomination, you tell others you follow certain tenets. the expression- managing the affairs is more which governs inside the institution, the exposition of the faith. these articles 26, 27, 28, 29 uses the word religion, religious practice, matters and affairs of religion, all these would be within the purview of the denomination.
Gopal: article 14 is the very antithesis of arbitrariness, but its quite distinct from the personal freedom under article 25.
article 25(1) is wide expansive sphere of individual freedom- there are stages of belief and disbelief, withdrawal of disbelief etc., simultaneously, you can move from other teacher to another. all this is protected under article 25(1) and therefore, we have to treat conscience independently.
in article 25(1) why is the collective not there? everybody said its the repository of individual and collective and article 26 is merely an enlongation of article 25(1).
an interpretation by which fullness by which a right is upheld is more preferred than which dimnishes a right. if the words of the constitition is clear, there is no scope to apply the theory of implied limitation.
the nature of individual freedom under article 25(1) is not the same as denominational freedom under article 26.
Gopal: Ms Jaising said that very accurately that these tests have nothing to do with this. its incapable of application. articles 25 and 26 may overlap, but they are capable of operating in distinct spheres; there would be no tension and conflict. even the quesiton of harmonisation would not arise- harmonisation is a sound rule to solve the mild tension between two competing rules.
One point of J Varale on rationality- the question stayed with me throughout the hearing-the scope and length of judicial review is not the same as Article 14. In other words, an irrational factor is relevant with Article 14, but for Article 25, the test of rationality doesn't apply.
Rohatgi: last 75 years, there has been no excommunication. he doesn't have some diabolical bond that he can do anything.
Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium: 4 submissions- judgment of HC of Gujarat erroneous-majority said that if she is still carrying out her faith as Parsi, it is a matter of evidence. Unanimously all judges relegated the petitioner to a suit. I sincerely urge we don't have to go into the facts of these cases.
Right located under article 25(1) or is 26 capable of independent standing
principle case plural drafting-all articles to be read together would apply to these articles 25 and 26
question about religion and religious denominations- I maintain religion is established doctrine of faith as commonly understood, denominations are those who belo