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

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

Vaidyanathan- these show indivudual belief, collective practice are protected.

refers to article 18 of ICCPR

Vaidyanathan- the international human rights intruments also recognise right to freedom of religious, conscience

arguments to continue at 2 pm.