Correction: counsel's name is MR Venkatesh ... ... Sabarimala Reference : Live Updates From Supreme Court 9-Judge Bench [Day 5]

Correction: counsel's name is MR Venkatesh

Venkatesh: [reads Ambedkar's speech] Ambedkar clearly made a distinction between untouchability and temporary defilment and I though was lost by the Sabarimala judgment which is core and arises from speeches of ambedkar.

I will merge questions 1 and 2- if mylords come to conclusion that scope and ambit of freedom is sky high, to that extent intervention becomes limited.

Article 25(1), I have no problem because we have given committment for human rights. Article 25(2)(a) only permits secular activities and does not abridge in its operation the core of the religion. Any law under the guise of regulating activities associated with religion identify ERP abridges religious freedoms and would be violates of article 13(2)

article 25(2)(a) contemplates an intervention into a secular law, where religious practices and its issues are in periphery. For instance, the words are political, economic and financial. Electoral law, is permissible. But we have turned the whole urgent upside down. We started reading religious law in association with secular practices. then brough religious practices into the corner by defining what is called as essential religious practices.