Sabarimala Reference : Live Updates From Supreme Court 9-Judge Bench [Day 5]

arguments to continue.

Giri: the right under article 25(1) could be treated as a individual right- what does it entail [reads it]-i have a conscience and that freedom of conscience need not to be associated with religious practice, i can be an athiest. I am therefore entitled to say I don't believe in god or I don't believe in any religion. I believe that each religion has its own rules, beliefs and practices.

Shirur Mutt says practice is also a part of religion. What Shirur Mutt held that practice can be religious practice and therefore covered in Article 25(1). I believe in idol worship and I go to the public temple, I am entitled to worship in the manner in which I have been enjoined to do.

article 25(2)(b) enables a state for not only social welfare and reforms but throwing open the hindu religious of public character.

Giri:there is collectively a wisdom that has been followed for years and years [on women between 10-50 not entering temple]

Sr Adv VV Giri(appears for two organisations): reads his written submissions.

J Nagarathna: we are not on learned counsels representing but on parties coming to the court, knocking the doors of the court.

J Nagarathna: this where you have said that a non-member of a faith in a form of individual or a group represent the cause of member

Dhavan: I have represented in so many cases. I am a Hindu and I represented Muslims in Babri Masjid. Of course, I started getting excreta parcels at home and I was attacked in court and your lordships asked if I need security and I said, i don't.

J Nagarathna: can at the instance of a non-believer, the rationality of a religious practice being gone into when he's not an aggreived person?

Dhavan: cause of action will be in the believer but suppose there is an Indian Lawyers Association who say we are a derivative and putting that claim, they will have locus

J Nagarathna: but the believer will never question the rationality of the practice.

J Nagarathna: the aggreived person can't be on the principles of constitution. It has to be on the question of religious practice. Because you just said the rationality of the practice can't be gone into. Actually they are asking us whether this practice is contrary to the constitution and therefore its better that such a practice is given up.

Dhavan: suppose there is a believer who says this practice of yours, it may be triple talaq. He says I don't think this is right. Now in triple talaq, J Kurian said that its not an essential practice. J Khekhar and J Nafeer said it is an essential practice and therefore go to Parliament.

Remember what I said about freely? A person may say i disagree. So that right will certainly be there freely.

Dhavan: 2. when a constitutional or statutory duty is not being is not being enforced-such as enabling legislation under article 25(2)(b).

3. where a religious practice affects a non-member on grounds of health, public order, or morality.

Dhavan: what is required here is-is there a cause of action constitutional or statutory. It is submitted that persons of another faith too have locus where implementing certain universal values embedded in the constitution- articles 17, 14, classification that other than SC/ST can enter, etc. i am distancing myself from what solicitor said on patriarcy.

Dhavan: Guruvayur decision was presented in a somewhat fussy manner. [reads it] high court issued suo motu notice they didn't bother to go to statutory authorities, and J Sinha said there are ordinary remedies and you can't just come up in a PIL.

i don't exclude locus of women, they are partly derivated. the locus will lie with any aggrieved person who has a course of action to enforce constitutional or statutory duty.