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
SG: constitutional morality is a political doctrine
J Bagchi: that is why, I asked what would be the import of subject to other-Article 17 you have addressed but there is Article 15. That is why, equality can't be taken away on the grounds of sex. But if you see article 26, it is not subject to. we are fully aware that it has to be compatible
J Nagarathna: how does article 26 apply?
SG: sorry to say, 20-30 pages written on article 17
J Sundresh: we need not to go into sabarimala
J Nagarathna: in the context of sabarimala controversy, how is article 26 relevant?
SG: their arguments was it is a religious denomination.
J Nagarathna: the temple is open to all hindus
SG: argument was it is a denominational temple and the court said its not. article 26(b) was placed to argue that it can manage its affairs- court said its not a denomination and 26(b) has been given an expansive meaning
SG: Article 26, in the present jurisprudence, says that no part III is an island and has to be understood in the context of other articles.
reads Article 26(b)- to manage its own affairs in matters of religion
SG: it can be occuption based for instance those dalit doing manual scavening are not permitted- that is way all section
J Amanuallah: you mean to say section would not include gender?
SG: it was intended for caste situation which was prevailing
SG: both of us are hindus, I belong to one denomination and he is of another and he is not a dalit and therefore not covered by Article 17, there can be a division- there can be a serious apprehension of society being divided
SG: sabarimala is about an attribute of a deity- how can it be judicially examined?
Title of Part III- title of chapter-right to freedom of religion-reads Article 25