Singhvi: this is not restrictly correct ... ... Sabarimala Reference : Live Updates From Supreme Court 9-Judge Bench [Day 4]

Singhvi: this is not restrictly correct

summarising:

a. Denominations and even sections thereof, understood in the widest possible sense, are protected under Article 26.

b. Management of affairs of denominations or sections thereof cannot be diluted or deprived by legislature, which, however, can regulate administration of property associated with religion and religious practices.

c. in case of a conflict between an individual right under Article 25(1) and the right of a denomination under Article 26, the right of the denomination would prevail as Article 25(1) is subject to other provisions of Part III which includes Article 26.

d. Though laws made under Article 25(2)(b), facially appear to violate Article 26(b), harmonious construction is the only methodology available to give some meaning and scope both to Article (25)(2)(b) and Article 26(b).

e. Such harmony is arrived at by allowing Article 26(b) untrammelled supremacy regarding all other forms of religion and religious practices but by creating a carve out when a law under Article (25)(2)(b) will prevail if it seeks to mandate access or social reform in certain situations.

f. Even the latter carve out in favour of the law under Article (25)(2)(b) is subjected to further limitations imposed / imposable by Article 26(b) e.g. prohibitions qua access to the inner most sanctum sanctorum would still be protected under Article 26(b) notwithstanding a law to the contrary under Article (25)(2)(b).

g. A law as understood under Part III is an essential sine qua non even to begin to intrude upon or regulate upon such issues

h. Articles 14 and 15 would be tried to the utmost to be reconciled with Article 25 but in case of impossibility of such harmony, the former would prevail over the latter.

i. The protection of Article 26 is wider and stronger and cannot be tested on the anvil of Articles 14 and 15.

j. Article 25(2)(a) does not permit the State to regulate religious practices themselves, but only economic, commercial, or political activities that are associated with religious practices, as clarified by the Supreme Court in Shirur Mutt. The freedom to practice religion under Article 25(1) therefore remains protected except where such practices conflict with public order, health, or morality.

J Nagarathna- paragraph f is almost identical to Vaidyanathan's arguments

Singhvi: no, he says article 25(2)(b) has to be waived into article 26(b) even to the extent of entry

J Nagarathna: no no. article 25(2)(b) relates to social reform which is different from religious reform

Singhvi- it has two parts-one is social reform and another is entry.

J Nagarathna: it is only a matter of degree

Singhvi: there is substantive difference. a law will say you are authorised to enter whereas article 26(b) will say you can't enter. Infact, founding mothers insisted on this.