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

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?

J Bagchi: see why the test should apply to the managmeent of the persons organising is where the answer of common organisation will come. anyone who is coming to the temple is part of a common faith and it may be a part of the common faith that other believers also come to our institutions or it can be a part of the common faith that apart from my believers nobody else could come

CJI: we appreciate your argument that because aurobindo followers believe that the view they follow is a religious view or it carries all the components of a religion, therefore they carve out an exception. therefore others can't impose it on them that you are not religious

J Nagarathna- please keep the illustrations separate, aurobindo is not a religious denomination, it may be a denomination

Mehta: it is a religion. it may be an honest and informed view but what is relevant is my view as a follower whether i believe it to be a religion

J Nagarathna- it is not denomination per se but religious denomination. how does it become religious denomintion in terms of Aurobindo's philosophy [referring to mitthal judgment]

SG- take Nizamuddin Auliya- people of all religions go and they go with reverence. it will not fulfil the first condition of spiritual enlightment- we go because we have trust, have faith

2. shridi sahibab- there is no common faith but i go there

there is no common organisation for dargah or shridi sahibaba

SG- take Nizamuddin Auliya- people of all religions go and they go with reverence. it will not fulfil the first condition of spiritual enlightment- we go because we have trust, have faith

2. shridi sahibab- there is no common faith but i go there

there is no common organisation for dargah or shridi sahibaba

SG Mehta- the majority definition was followed in sabarimala and in my respectful submission, it is an incorrect definition of denomination-

The words "religious denomination" in Article 26

of the Constitution must take their colour from the word

'religion' andif this be so, the expression "religious

denomination" must also satisfy three conditions:

(i) It must be a collection of individuals who has a

system of beliefs or doctrine which they regard as

conducive totheir spiritual well-being, that is,

a common faith;

(ii) Common organisation: and

(iii)Designation by a distinctive name

SG Mehta: it is a wrong law which is decided- the court tried to define what is religious denomination

SG Mehta: so this is the danger mylords are in a nine-judge bench combination and the question is, would the court read articles 25 and 26 the way its read in seshammal

reads SP Mitthal judgment