[Sabarimala Reference]Nine-Judge Bench Hearing- Live-Updates From Supreme Court
The 9-judge bench constituted by the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice SA Bobde has commenced hearing on the issues mentioned in the Sabarimala review order.The Bench has framed the following questions for hearing 1. What is the scope and ambit of right to freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution of India?2. What is the inter-play between the rights of persons under...
The 9-judge bench constituted by the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice SA Bobde has commenced hearing on the issues mentioned in the Sabarimala review order.
The Bench has framed the following questions for hearing
1. What is the scope and ambit of right to freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution of India?
2. What is the inter-play between the rights of persons under Article 25 of the Constitution of India and rights of religious denomination under Article 26 of the Constitution of India?
3. Whether the rights of a religious denomination under Article 26 of the Constitution of India are subject to other provisions of Part III of the Constitution of India apart from public order, morality and health?
4. What is the scope and extent of the word 'morality' under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India and whether it is meant to include Constitutional morality?
5. What is the scope and extent of judicial review with regard to a religious practice as referred to in Article 25 of the Constitution of India?
6. What is the meaning of expression "Sections of Hindus" occurring in Article 25 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India?
7. Whether a person not belonging to a religious denomination or religious group can question a practice of that religious denomination or religious group by filing a PIL?
Even if there is an essential religious practice, it can be regulated if it affects the three grounds in the Article. “This is the hallmark of our Constitution.” CJI says that sati is an example of this.
“Even a religious aspect can be the subject matter of reform.”
He brings up an example of how a procession could be held, but if it has the ability to disturb public order, then a law could be legislated regulating the same
SG says that the last segment is for a “naastik” or agnostics. He also states that the word ‘secular’ takes colour from the words preceding it in the Article.
SG brings the Court back to Article 25 and the aspect of “equally entitled”. He states that the same was taken from the British where they had one religion with different aspects.
CJI tries to clarify whether the SG is trying to say that “a Muslim can not decide Hindu practices and a Buddhist cannot decide Muslim practices”.
SG says that the government or the court can only decide when it comes to public order, health and morality. In other cases, it is up to the denomination
CJI asks SG what the point is he making. “You’re saying that religion governs man’s relationship with his Creator ? And all these sects and denominations have the right to regulate and decide the nature of this relationship ? So, are you saying that someone else outside the sect is determining it ?”
SG posits multiple examples in the pluralism available to one religion. “There are denominational rules which exist. Every temple has different codes. Some worship Lord Krishna as a child and others do as a King. If I go to a certain temple which prescribes a dress code, I will follow it.”
There are two things which must be considered:
1. There are modes of worship, rituals, observances, ceremonies that constitute a religion. It cannot be limited to a doctrine. So, what is this religion.
2. Whether a particular facet is essential or not. Or it will be decided by the denomination concerned. So, the issue is whether the ‘essential practice test’ should be decided by the Court or the religious denomination.