Sabarimala Reference : Live Updates From Supreme Court 9-Judge Bench [Day 14]

Farasat: reads Navneet Pillay v KwaZulu-Natal Provincial Government

Farasat: wherever there is genuine state interest, article 25(2) would step in.

Farasat: on the nature of test: everybody has argued in the context of entry. if I access a secular space, what is my article 25 right? 9 judge bench are answering broad questions, there are ramification

I agree with petitioners that essentiality should go. it casts a shadow in article 25(1) when it arose in the aspect of article 25(2). the bottleneck was so narrow that nothing went in the bottle. mylords should remove it for once and all. one south african judgment says- this was a case where a young girl, she went with a nose stud and school didn't allow- the court said its not necessary to be essential and if countervailing is not important, then it should be allowed.

Farasat: morality, they used the word sadachar but the literal translation is something else.

mr gupta showed article 394A, only english copy was authenticated.

Farasat: I am saying in such cases constitutional morality will prevail.

the other side said constitutional morality is a value how do you test it? what was basic structure then?

J Sundresh: you can't say its prejudice, there could be multiple factors

Farasat: prevailing notions can

J Nagarathna: if a person wants to marrying, the diversity is such the people want to align with similar values

Farasat: caste is social structure, it exists in society. I have seen people from different caste in Muslims there is so much exclusion

CJI: nobody can dispute but sitting here to like opinions which in what background it has been made

Sr Adv Shadan Farasat: I appear for two professors who are scheduled caste and married each other. first question on constitutional morality: in a case like this, it is ease to present a false binary- it is not a question of whether it is constitutional or public morality?

people of india has given to themselves the values so it cannot not be public morality. general morality can differ from constitutional morality-in large cases it lies in the same realm. for instance, having sexual relations with children below 18-both constittuional and religious morality will prevent it.

public morality can just be prejudice of the society at that time. I have given a survey in 2025, most than 60% are against inter-caste marriages.

CJI: how to rely, everybody knows how these surveys are tailored. it can't be of people sitting in AC rooms with prejudged agenda in academic terms [saying what is morality]

J Nagarathna: why do you say people marrying each other is prejudice?

CJI: if you ask parents and grandparents, they would say this and if you ask the young they would say otherwise

Guruswamy: the act of throwing open any public temple can;t be any act contrary to the hindu religion. for instance, state of kerala enacted the act which allows hindus to entry the temple.

conclusion-restricted interpretation of section thereof would wipe out because definition of hindus include women.

Guruswamy: the challenge is if you were to leave the faith for religious dynamics, you would see progressive reforms happening. when you codify you continue to intepret it. they are not intended to be codified but as colonial society, we adopted certain set of systems.

Guruswamy: in the context of what is before is the kerala places of worship rules- it fails to satisfy the test of proportionality. rule itself has six proscriptions- those not hindu, women in such time during custom and usage, person under pollution, drunken, or contagious disease, unsound mind and professional beggers- this is something a bit insulting to be compared to those categories, its stimagising