SG: The contention formulated in such broad terms cannot, we think, be supported. In the first place, what constitutes the essential part of a religion is primarily to be ascertained with reference to the doctrines of that religion itself.
SG: there can be a law for social reforms even if it interfers with religious beliefs.
refers to attorney general's contention in shirur mutt- is that all secular activities, which may be associated with religion but do not really constitute an essential part of it, are amenable to State regulation.
J Nagarathna: the anushtanas can't be a subject matter of court's decision
SG: there is where dargah committee judgment goes wrong- integral part of religion and not the essential part.
SG: 26(b) as per shirur mutt is a standalone provision and can't be interfered with.
SG: see the composition of the bench because Ratilal Gandhi, which is two days later.
In shirur mutt a direction was issued for creating a scheme under hindu endowement act and the act was also under challenged. two proceedings filed- one suit and another writ petition.
SG: refers to Shirur Mutt case: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1430396/
to be continued post lunch.
J Nagarathna: worship is a manifestation and article 25 is related to conscience and therefore related but article 26 is totally different
SG: My argument is neither is superior, it has to be purposive interpretation