Sabarimala Reference : Live Updates From Supreme Court 9-Judge Bench [Day 2]
A 9-judge bench of the Supreme Court will continue hearing the Constitutional issues referred to the larger bench in the Sabarimala review.
This is the second day of the hearing.
Apart from CJI Surya Kant, the Bench comprises Justice BV Nagarathna, Justice MM Sundresh, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice Aravind Kumar, Justice Augustine George Masih, Justice Prasanna B Varale, Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.
Reports from Day 1 Hearing are given below :
Follow this page for live updates from today's hearing :
J Nagarathan: public morality is from the point of view of the followers. constitutional morality is constitutional dharma
Mehta: that's the word but its for how the functionaries or government should function in absence of constitutional provisions
J Bagchi: mr solicitor, you are perhaps says that constitutional morality governs secular rights and the capsule of religious rights have on basis of understood morality of society vis-a-vis the religious tenets followed by religious tenets. secular character of a citizen and the religious beliefs of a citizen can't be emerged in a secular democracy
Mehta: or tested based on one condition that is constitutional morality if its otherwise socially morale and acceptable to cultural ethos of the nation
Mehta: judicial review has to be exercised as per the Constitution. if its public order, morality and health you have to go by that. but sabarimala says we will not go by societal values morality because that is mob morality and we will go by constitutional morality. if i say this is my faith and its not harming the society, none of them have any objections they will merely be a mob and the court will decide whether it is constitutional morality. i am putting it in a harder way but it is that absurd
Mehta: constitutional morality is a doctrine of political science how functionaries are to function, whether a person who is facing a serious criminal charge should step down or not- these are constitutional conventions but it is not one of the grounds to exercise judicial review
Mehta: refers to a judgment- this would have a bearing on one of the questions by your lordships whether it is societal morality or vague and wrongly applied definition of constitutional morality. I will show that public order and morality is understood as public order and public morality and not vague concept of constitutional morality
Mehta: refers to bijoe emmanuel case- this was singing the national anthem by Jehovah's Witnesses
Mehta: in sabarimala judgment, court examined this definition and said that those who go to ayyappa temple don't fulfil these tests and therefore it is not a denomination
J Amanullah- then we have to deal with lord ayyappa temple
J Amanullah- mr mehta, again a doubt in my mind, why are we trying to interpret articles 25 and 26 when the language is very clear. in these cases a particular fact..
CJI: probably the point is, when articles 25 and 26 are to be examined in the light of the constitution granting constitutional protections to religion, religious bodies or religious denominations, and that protection has to be seen and that protection has to be seen from the angle that of aggression or action by the state to intervene in that
Mehta- your lordships level of intellectual scholarship may be different, your knowledge of reading Swavitri may be different. it is my understand as follower would be the correct test to decide whether we fall within section
Mehta: nobody says aurovillo or swaminarayan is a religion, it is a denomination of section of. second, your lordships understanding of religion with your lordships scholarship of law and religion, may be correct, but would it be a correct test to be applied to my fundamental right?