[Sabarimala Reference]Nine-Judge Bench Hearing- Live-Updates From Supreme Court

While reading out the judgement, SG says that it is not right to reduce religion to merely a doctrine. “It’s a set of beliefs that is followed with the aid of rituals.”

SG is now reading out the Auroville Society judgement about the religious denomination formed by the followers of Ramanujan and Madhavacharya.

“Where is the line to be drawn regarding what are the matters of religion and what are not ? Till this date, this question has not be answered.”

“Your Lordships will have to ultimately declare a statement of law about whether the decision made to restrict the scope of ‘religious denomination’ in the Auroville 7 judge Bench case is to be upheld or not.”

“Defining ‘denomination’ would be the most crucial information during the course of this hearing.” SG emphasises on the bearing that the word ‘denomination’ would have on the consequent judgement. He reads out the Oxford dictionary definition and how it must be treated as a sacrosanct definition.

SG asserts that “Religious practices may take colour from the Preamble of the Constitution as well as the Charter. Your Lordships are setting the law and have the liberty to decide the same.”

He states that there are two striking features in all the judgements:

1. The effective parties are present.

2. Challenge to a specific legislation.

“The right to enter a temple is not a restricted or regulated right.” SG continues with the submission and iterates the judgements that he is putting before the Bench. One judgement is Narahari Shastriya, and the second is Saraswati Ammal. SG says that these judgments might not help, but they’re important for the sake of arguments.

SG continues with his arguments. He says that Art. 25 is subject to Part 3. He relies on a judgement to show that every fundamental right is not an island; every right applies to everything.

“This is a very enlightening discussion in the Constituent Assembly debates. There can be a law for the purpose of regulating or for providing for social welfare and reform.”

SG says that he will read Article 25, 26. “Subject to public order, morality and health...”.

He says that these are the restrictions that are applied on Art. 25 along with whatever is stipulated in Part 3, I.e. the Fundamental Rights.

CJI then directs SG Tushar Mehta to start the arguments.

SG explains the chronology of his submissions; the brief facts and the judgements.