Singhvi: It is further interesting to note that... ... Sabarimala Reference : Live Updates From Supreme Court 9-Judge Bench [Day 4]

Singhvi: It is further interesting to note that despite the existence of the phase “subject to … the other provisions of this Chapter” from as early as April 1947, and despite detailed discussion of all substantive aspects of freedom of religion over the next two years, no discussion can be found as to the reason for the insertion of the phrase “subject to … the other provisions of this Chapter” nor for the scope and amplitude of coverage of this phrase.

Consequentially, in view of the tabula rasa presented by the Constituent Assembly Debates on the rationale underlying use of this phrase, the reasoning given in the earlier part of this Section, as to how Article 25 must be harmonized with the other provisions of the Constitution and neither attenuated nor decimated, reflects the correct approach and ought to be adopted by this nine Judge Bench.

Noting the absence of the phrase “other provisions of this Part” in Article 26, the Supreme Court has in the several cases made every effort to harmonise Article 26 with any competing Fundamental Right in Part III, considering the factual situation before it.