Raju: so my conclusion is -A practice which is... ... Sabarimala Reference : Live Updates From Supreme Court 9-Judge Bench Hearing [Day 13]

Raju: so my conclusion is

-A practice which is conducted in response to secular and social actions of an individual, or which has significant secular and social consequences for that individual, cannot be the subject of Constitutional protection under A.25 and consequently cannot be a ‘matter of religion’ under A.26

A practice which may have a religious aspect but also significantly and adversely impacts fundamental rights is not immune to restriction under A.25 or A.26

It is the impact of the practice which must be considered by the Court and not simply the stated basis, either historical or religious, to determine the extent of permissible restrictions.