Sabarimala Reference : Live Updates From Supreme Court 9-Judge Bench [Day 3]
Today is the third day of arguments before the 9-judge bench of the Supreme Court in the Sabarimala reference.
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 :
Reports from Day 2 Hearing are given below :
How Can Non-Devotees Of Lord Ayyappa Challenge Sabarimala Custom? Supreme Court Asks
Live updates from today's hearing can be followed in this page :
J Bagchi- let us say the sampradaya feels the common belief is one of vegetarian but thereafter a section of it decides that this is not enough, there should be fasting and that becomes a belief- that change of belief, does it become a new sampradaya?
nataraj- yes, new sampradaya keeps on coming
nataraj- there is no rigid structure for sampradaya, it is a matter of faith
J Nagarathna- but sampradaya is something which can come time immemorial, it is something of permanence
J Sundresh- you can come out with new idea or beliefs
J Bagchi- my question is if the sampradaya changes its belief, does it become a new sampradaya or its the same
nataraj- there is no definite meaning
nataraj- it has with reference to article 25 (1) so collectively we have right and it transfers into the denomination to be followed time immemorial and that is protected under article 26
J Bagchi- can the sampradaya change its belief
nataraj-it can
J Sundresh- so you are saying there is no need for a review on this...simply you have to take the existence of a believer
nataraj- a group of a few people may follow particular sampradaya and if its according to their belief, it has to be protected.
Nataraj- sampradaya will not necessarily have any formal structure
nataraj-denomination, no doubt, is an english word denoted in the constitution but when it comes to Indian landscape its called Sampradaya
nataraj- keep see article 394A(3)-"(3) The translation of this Constitution and of every amendment thereof published under this article shall be deemed to be, for all purposes, the authoritative text thereof in the Hindi language."
nataraj- article 26 of the constitution of india which guarantees right to manage religious affairs finds origin in article 44 of the Irish Constitution which itself is based on article 114 of the Polish Constitution, 1921. However, such borrowings must not be used as rigid translation of meaning. The idea and origin of article 26 may be foreign but its interpretation must necessarily be indigenous keeping in mind the indic religions and social, cultural and religious demography of india
CJI: you develop your submissions
nataraj- religious denomination must be protected in indian context
J Amanullah- you said article 25 includes not just internal belief but also external manifestation- are you putting it in a plain terms that whatever is an internal belief the external manifestation is also protected?
nataraj- yes
J Amanullah- how can it be?internally yes but the moment external manifestation has affected the right of some other section, how can it be protected? the moment you say my internal will also be imposed externally and that has some relationship with rights of others in society, then part of articles 14, 15
nataraj- part III steps in
J Amanullah-you can't say whatever internally you carry externally and that will also be protected