Singhvi: (a) The derogations specified in Article... ... Sabarimala Reference : Live Updates From Supreme Court 9-Judge Bench [Day 4]

Singhvi: (a) The derogations specified in Article 25(1) can, be effected only by “law” as defined in Article 13;

(b) Many speakers in the debates, including K.M. Munshi and Laxmi Maitra, articulated this facet and assumed “law” to be implicit in the structure of Article 25 (then Article 19 in the Constituent Assembly).

(c) Diverse judgements, and especially Shirur Mutt and Sardar Syedna, have treated the derogations to be part of the sovereign power of the State to regulate through law.

(d) Freedom to profess, practice and propagate religion was treated as a fundamental constitutional virtue and an interpretation which allows derogation only by “law” would alone be consistent with the high status accorded to this right both during the debates and textually.

(e) The word “law” would not unduly limit or fetter the discretion of the State nor attenuate its elbow room and flexibility to regulate, because law in Article 13 is defined very expansively and not in a limiting or circumscribed manner.

(f) To allow derogation in respect of as vital and significant a fundamental right as the right to religion, by ad-hoc and mere subjective executive instructions, orders, and directions, not having the trappings of either law or delegated legislation, would render susceptible such an important fundamental right to dangerous executive invasion.

(g) In the context of the aforesaid larger objectives and perspectives, even if a doubt existed (I submit it doesn't) as to this issue (which does not exist), constitutional courts and the 9-judge bench should adopt a teleological and purposive interpretation to sub-serve the object of strengthening the right of freedom of religion.