Sabarimala Reference : Live Updates From Supreme Court 9-Judge Bench [Day 2]

J Nagarathna: what we have understood is that the original writ petitions are not devotees?

Mehta: no no

J Nagarathna: no devotee has approached this court challenging this, then who is the writ petition assailing this? who is the original writ petitioner

Mehta: original writ petition is one young lawyers association

J Amanullah- will you be assisting us on the basic facets of lord ayyappa

Mehta: yesterday it was clear that we are not addressing the court on the merits of the matter. I said yesterday that sabarimala judgment is wrong which i will demonstrate irrespective of what view your lordships take on articles 25 and 26. I am in favour of review, I am saying its a wrong judgment but it was decided that the reference says that it is referred to 9 judges to decide judicial policy to deal with religious freedoms

Mehta: who feel that certain class of persons should not be permitted, this is never examined at all

Mehta: every religion there are certain attributes and secular courts are not supposed to sit in appeal over the validity, legality or propriety or the attributes of the deity- for instance, lord ayyappa is a brahmachari and therefore certain rules are followed

the right of entry into a temple will have to be tested in the right of devotees

Mehta: based on this fundamental principle the dignity of a woman, the implied fundamental right is the foundamental basis of sabarimala and mylords will have to necessarily pronounce upon the validity or correctness of these observations

Mehta: it is representative and none have come from harvard and yale. this reflects those who have risen from the ranks and they have pplayed on the streets so we know

Mehta: fortunately, the outcome of these proceedings we don't know but these nine judges will not have to be criticised for this, no representation

J Nagarathna: thanks to the CJI, hinting about the composition of this bench, you can't no representation

Mehta: if these judgments navtej johar, joseph shine, etc were to be read by Dr Ambedkar or Kanaiya Lal Munshi or Aladi Krisnan, I don't know whether they would be surprised, shocked or they would say this is what we wanted- I believe they didn't want this to happen

J Sundresh: on the touchstone of the constitution, if you say [adultery] is a part of liberty, how can anyone file [divorce]?

Mehta: then its not cruelty because then I was exercising my choice, it was question of my dignity, bodily autonomy

J Nagarathna: my learned brother is saying divorce on grounds of adultry may never lie

Mehta: that is the view of J Nariman, which I respectfully disagree because [sodomy] has always been immoral even in Indian context.