Sabarimala Reference : Live Updates From Supreme Court 9-Judge Bench [Day 3]

Vaidyanathan- it is only in respect of public temple that Article 25(2)(b) law could have been made. Unfortunately, in my respectful submission, there was two judgments binding on the bench-7 and 5 judge bench. What Shirur Mutt said, and I appeal to mylords to uphold that Shirur Mutt provision.

Vaidyanathan- it is only in respect of public temple that Article 25(2)(b) law could have been made. Unfortunately, in my respectful submission, there was two judgments binding on the bench-7 and 5 judge bench. What Shirur Mutt said, and I appeal to mylords to uphold that Shirur Mutt provision.

Vaidyanathan- as a denominational temple, it was open to them to give permissive rights and have worship or confine it only to the denomination. If it was only a permissive right, and that was the argument of Nambhyar, it doesn;t become a public temple.

Vaidyanathan- there was a declaration that it is a denominational temple and that came right upto this court and it was decided. in the suit, there was a finding by the trial court that it is public temple affirmed by the first appellate cour that it is a public temple. Mr Nambyar said that this is a matter which I should be allowed to challenge it that it is not a public temple but a private temple. he said that it has already being declared as a denominational temple and it has been affirmed. court said you have not claimed it to be a private temple and therefore, today you cna't be allowed to plea that it is a private temple. There was a contrary situation-one declaration that it was a denominational temple and another that it was private temple.

Vaidyanathan- [reading devaru] "We must accordingly hold that if the rights of the appellants have to be determined solely with reference to Art. 26 (b), then s. 3. of Act V of 1947, should be held to be bad as infringing it."- this is a binding finding

the question of who may enter temple or worship when governed by theological prescription is a matter of religion within article 25 and a law compelling entry violates that right, the only reason the law was upheld was because of the consequent conclusion that article 25(2)(b) overrides article 25(b)

J Nagarathna- in devaru, with regard to Gowda Saraswath brahim temple there was a suit filed and it was established that all persons other than Gowda Saraswath brahmins were excluded. when the matter was pending and constititon came into force, and articles 25 and 26 were pressed into service and simply it was applied to the suit. contrary to the findings and that is how the matter came up and they took the same position that articles 25 and 26 is there forgetting it arose from a suit and not writ petition

Vaidyanathan-Devaru, the court did not deal with the larger seven judge bench judgment that article 26(b) is not controlled; the court did not explain that nothing in this article shall mean nothing in article 26.

Vaidyanathan-makes arguments on constitutional morality-he says the earlier word used was spirit of the constitution

if they intended to give it a meaning, they would have used samvaidhanik naitikta which is not the expression used

Vaidyanathan- it is an atonement of our past, historically whatever injustices have taken place

Vaidyanathan- the constitutional architecture of Part III is in such a manner that articles 17, 23 and 24 form a separate group-its kind of a punishable thing-therefore this is a very unique constitutional architecture

CJI- Article 17 is a very powerful constitutional declaration, it is not only an offence under the penal law but in a way it creates a constitutional offence

CJI-that is why my brother said it would be difficult to accept it as an abstract statement that article 26 will never be affected