Singhvi: reads Ratilal judgment and devaru It... ... Sabarimala Reference : Live Updates From Supreme Court 9-Judge Bench [Day 4]

Singhvi: reads Ratilal judgment and devaru

It is noteworthy that in Sri Venkatramana the issue decided was whether the right of a religious denomination to manage its own affairs in matters of religion guaranteed under Article 26(b) is subject to, and can be controlled by a law protected by Article 25(2)(b) i.e. throwing open a Hindu public temple to all classes and sections of Hindus

a. This Hon’ble Court held that if Article 26(b) alone is applied then any provision of the Madras Temple Entry Authorisation Act throwing open access to all classes would be unconstitutional creating an apparent conflict between Article 26(b) and Article 25(2)(b)- this is where we differ from Vaidyanathan

b. All arguments as to why Article 26(b) should override Article 25(2)(b) were rejected. The principle of harmonious construction is pressed into service and it was held that while for all matters Article 26(b) will apply, regarding entry into a temple Article 25(2)(b) will prevail.