SG: We may refer in this connection to a few American and Australian cases, all of which arose out of the activities of persons connected with the religious association known as "Jehova's Witnesses."
SG: What article 25(2)(a) contemplates is not regulation by the State of religious practices as such, the freedom of which is guaranteed by the Constitution except when they run counter to public order, health and morality, but regulation of activities which are economic, commercial or political in their character though they are associated with religious practices.
SG: If the tenets of any religious sect of the Hindus prescribe that offerings of food should be given to the idol at particular hours of the day, that periodical ceremonies should be performed in a certain way at certain periods of the year or that there should be daily recital of sacred texts or ablations to the sacred fire, all these would be regarded as parts of religion and the mere fact that they involve expenditure of money or employment of priests and servants or the use of marketable commodities would not make them secular activities partaking of a commercial or economic character; all of them are religious.
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/