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

Vaidyanathan- take the case of ayyappa

J Nagarathna-we don't have that rigid system

Vaidyanathan- in Sabarimala, there is no distinction made that there is no bar to christians or muslim centric but they have must have faith and belief in the divinity of the ayyappa and they have to follow 40 day vratam and whatever practices enjoined on the believers. nobody is prohibited and therefore this concept has not been understood.

it is not necessary that religious denomination means the person has to belong to a particular religion- this is an erroneous understsnding

Vaidyanathan- we don't have a system of archbishops, pope, bishops and that kind of a theological structure

J Nagarathna: that means, in hinduism, hindus can belong to different sampradayas and can visit any temples. there is no bar, but if Hindus want to visit a particular temple, the sampradayas attached to that temple must be followed.

Vaidyanathan- in Shirur Mutt when refers to Oxford dictionary was made out and three conditions were set, this was not considered by the court to be mandatory requirement. this was only an extract from the dictionary. SG and ASG has placed about dharmic sampradaya.

the court didnt lay down a rigid test for religious denomination and the court didnt have opportunity ti refer to hindi translation. in the absence of that, they referred to oxford dictionary more considered with abrahamic religion

Vaidyanathan- article 25(2)(b) is not a gender equality provision. the constitutional power to throw open the temple to classes and sections of hindu is not [unclear] to gender equality. the provision was introduced for specfic response to caste based exclusion rooted in untouchability and must be understood within the limited context.

the fact that framers of the constitution specficially empowered state the laws, throwing open hindu religious institutions to all classes and sections of hindu is constititional significant. if equality guaranteed contained under articles 14 and 15(2) are themselves sufficient to mandate the universal access to temples, article 25(2)(b) would serve no independent purpose. it would have been otiose

Vaidyanathan- it is in this context, nothing to do with gender or sex.

article 25(2)(b) is a targeted social reform provision and not religious reform

aidyanathan-article 17 deals with untouchability in the context of past unfortunate historical practices. That is why in Nagaraj, which i quoted in para 27, so far as religious institutions are concerned social justice, equality are guaranteed for hindu religion of public character alone and not of other religion or private hindu character and even, in my respectful submission, of denomination character if they don't throw it open

Vaidyanathan- articles 29 and 30 also do not talk about gender and sex because we have in history institutions exclusively for girls and boys. today we have coeducation institutions but nobody wanted to make it mandatory to enable parliament to make it compulsory to make it co-educational

Vaidyanathan-in the context in sabarimala on right of women- Article 15 as it stands today was sought to be amended in constituent assembly debate to include places of worship-this was rejected.

amendment in regard to throwing open various places of worship-the amendment was rejected and right to access to places of worship in only pursuant to article 25(2)(b). we can't invoke general prohibition of articles 15 and 16

Vaidyanathan- article 25(2)(b)-the fact that it is not authorising religious reforms but social reforms-its very important.

Vaidyanathan- constitutional rights protect individual religious beliefs and collective practice of religion. aforesaid is also consistent with constitutional committment of liberty, though etc