Sabarimala Reference | Live Updates From Supreme Court 9-Judge Bench [Day 8]

Sr Adv Jayanth Muthu Raj (women devotees supporting the existing custom in the temple): the conflicting interest is between two individuals in exercising rights under article 25(1) as well as qua article 26(b).

refers to Hoffman's rights and duties as a correlatives-meaning that every fundamental right owed by a person imposes a corresponding duty on others to not infringe it. an individual right to profess and practice according to their conscience include the right to disagree with the existing practice or practices. however, the existence of this right can't be allowed to question the rationality of another belief, faith and religious practices through the court of law.

they may agree with me, or they may not agree with me. but they can't go the court saying that let this practice be irrational or bad.

Radhakrishnan: if you are seeing paragraphs 3 and 4 of the writ petition, all sorts of denigration remarks about lord ayyappa. divine baby-they are not believing. scurrilous remarks. the state government is the trustee and the board is the administration. these are all slanderious, libellous remarks. Section 499(defamation) [but] no action by the state government. the child is an infant, lord ayyappa. even now it is continuing.

J Sundresh: don't go into all this

Radhakrishnan: With respect to sabarimala, they[writ petitioners] have not created any prejudice. they are pratically non-believers. there was a litigant in the Kerala High Court with respect to Makarajyothi. It can be seen at the east end side of the temple, but when a non-believer filed a writ petition and pleaded that there should be an inquiry because it is man-made and all this. now, the state government took a firm stand that these are all relating to religious faith and worship so we are not conducting an inquiry. why are they not taking a stand in this writ petition?

they are saying this should be referred to pundits. i wonder if any pundits of this contemporary area can sit in judgment of a Parasurama who has devised the puja vidi in Sabarimala

Radhakrishnan: with respect to judicial review, judicial review can't be questioned by anybody. whenever situation warrants, mylords would be conducting judicial review but mylords will be very relutant to enter into the ecclesistical jurisdiction.

Radhakrishnan(for Pandalam Royal Family-foster father of the deity Ayyappa): articles 25(1) and 26 there is a bridging. article 25(2)(a) or (b) can't anyway control article 26. bridging is there from article 25(1) to article 26 and it has to be read holistically. when you consider morality, there is an aspect of public policy is also there that you are not acting against the society at large.

Radhakrishnan: why should we afraid of constitutional morality?

Radhakrishnan: morality in indian constitution, there is no prefix. it is used as such. you can call morality as generic and four species can be identified- public, individual, constitutional, and institutional. these specifes are already smiling at each other because at the bottom of this, there is righteousness, fairness, justness

Radhakrishnan: [refers to Ram Manohar Lohia] refers to the three concentric circle theory- with the right to have freedom of religion, conscience you can't tender with the second concentric circle or something which will affect the transquility of the society. morality is the maximum good that a human being can procedure, that is what Jeremy Benthan says in his theory of legislation.

in our constitution the word only morality is used in articles 25, 26, and 19(5) and (6) and in the latter, it says in the general interest of the public. this is connected to the peaceful existence of the people in the society.

J Nagarathna: please place on record the 2016 Act which repealed the earlier ex-communication act.

Sr Adv Radhakrishnan: there are four hold restrictions under articles 25(1), and as Sr Adv Rakesh Dwivedi argued yesterday it is for the securing peaceful coexistence in the nation.

Kaul: it was brought to the notice of the framers that article 20, as it existed, which is article 26, did not include any limitations. the framers, when they debates, said yes it ought to be included but it only included these three and did not include other parts. if constitutional morality is read into morality then we are bringining it lot more than what has been envisaged. and would your lordship supplant that meaning and introduce these words when the legislature or the framers [did not do so]