J Nagarathna: can at the instance of a... ... Sabarimala Reference : Live Updates From Supreme Court 9-Judge Bench [Day 5]

J Nagarathna: can at the instance of a non-believer, the rationality of a religious practice being gone into when he's not an aggreived person?

Dhavan: cause of action will be in the believer but suppose there is an Indian Lawyers Association who say we are a derivative and putting that claim, they will have locus

J Nagarathna: but the believer will never question the rationality of the practice.

J Nagarathna: the aggreived person can't be on the principles of constitution. It has to be on the question of religious practice. Because you just said the rationality of the practice can't be gone into. Actually they are asking us whether this practice is contrary to the constitution and therefore its better that such a practice is given up.

Dhavan: suppose there is a believer who says this practice of yours, it may be triple talaq. He says I don't think this is right. Now in triple talaq, J Kurian said that its not an essential practice. J Khekhar and J Nafeer said it is an essential practice and therefore go to Parliament.

Remember what I said about freely? A person may say i disagree. So that right will certainly be there freely.