J Bagchi: faith says this is my faith and followers follow that. the fact that this is my faith stated by the religious head is something which is within the domain of the court to apply appropriate forensic tool, but whether that faith exist is for the religious head to decide
SG: mylords will have to first decide what is religious practice and then what is essential religious practice
J Bagchi: there is difference between opinion on faith and faith perceived. one can have a particular faith but whether opinion exists in that denomination is separate from the testing of what is the faith itself
J Sundresh: probably difference is science is based on logic and reasoning but religion is based on faith.
J Amanullah: are you suggesting that court may not go into the domain of ERP
J Bagchi: if your proposition is taken to a logical conclusion, courts are not experts in science but evidence act empowers the court to examine the opinions of experts and becomes expert of experts
SG: there are acts which prevent superstitions such as blackmagic etc.
SG: in case of Dargah Committee, 5 judges held it is a denomination, rightly held. The only problem with dargah committee was it introduced for the first time essential religious practice and goes to the extent of saying superstitution is not protected- courts certaintly can't decide
SG: I can give 50 examples where all communities go. Shrinath ji, Shivites also go. You can't say its ultimately a vishnav denomination.
SG: so far Article 25 did not have sections thereof- because religious denomination may prevent a section- Sabarimala does not notice this. It says Sabarimala is not a denomination and therefore no protection under Articles 25 and 26. I gave example of Nizamuddin or Shirdi, everyone goes.
SG: there is no discrimination. this was era-specific provision that public temple or public religious institution- it should be open for all, we must do away with untouchability. I am saying this because one judgment says this was to allow women to enter temples.
SG: 1 May, 1947, K Munshi moved to add a specific provision that religious freedom would not preclude the laws for throwing open the hindu religious institutions to all classes directly targeting exclusion of dalits and lower caste- we were living in society where one particular part of hindu was not allowed to be a part of broader hindu religion but this has nothing to do with gender.