Sabarimala Reference : Live Updates From Supreme Court 9-Judge Bench Hearing [Day 13]

Raju: as J Sundresh observed article 26 is an extension of article 25. I wouldn't go further as I adopt the arguments of Mr Khambata as he put that article 25 can standalone but article 26 can't standalone.

Raju: A.26 protects such expression of the beliefs, doctrines, which are fundamentally protected by A.25(1) and consequently must be subject to the limitations therein. A.26 does not grant denominations extraordinary status relative to individuals under A.25(1).

Raju: this court is the protector of fundamental rights so here is where i can only proceed

The Constitution recognises that persons, in exercise of their A.25(1) right, have formed and continue to form denominations for the organisation of their religious activities.

J Amanullah: your argument is the cause of action is continuing

Raju: question is what were you doing uptil now and why didn't i file review?

the fear of excommunication includes the fear of approaching the court. this is the nature, there is no sudden with atmost respect. generations of persons have suffered excommunication and it takes courage

J Varale: its as good as civil dead

J Kumar: when cause of action arose, you should have approached civil court

Raju: here are families who suffered dignity. 40 years aftet this writ petition has entertained and gone through a gamet. again and again to be asked what where you doing, i would address later

J Nagarathna: tomorrow a group of individual from your community will come and ask restore ex communication, our syedna's right has been violated.

CJI: you had a law in your favour which was struck down by this court which compelled you to come here

Raju: A.26 is an expression of the fundamental right to freedom of religion in A.25

J Nagarathna: who is the central board of dawoodi bohra? who represents it

Raju: neeraj kishan kaul who did the intiial mischief

J Nagarathna: the community has come before this court

Raju: a victim of excommunication and violence is the second petitioner

J Nagarathna: are you a conformist of this religion?

CJI: the protection has been taken to a general mandate

Raju: The right to freedom of religion is primarily the right of the individual under A.25(1): “all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion.”

Raju: on the first issue the right of freedom under article 25: The Preamble secures to all citizens: liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship. A specific expression of liberty of belief, faith and worship is in Article 25. When the Preamble refers to fraternity, it takes care to secure the dignity of the individual: “Fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation.”

Raju: while the validity of the act was tested in a lis by an ex communication person, the 1962 judgment is a judgment rendered in 32 between the syedna and maharashtra. can we ask why didn't the supreme court while being aware that it was upheld in context of lis, why didn't it ask the representatives to be admitted as parties?

J Nagarathna: it was against the state legislature.

Raju: i am talking about fairness

CJI: the community was a stakeholder, it should have been heard. the manner in which the writ petition was entertained is questionable

J Bagchi: your argument is while interpreting article 26 we should declare the 1962 judgment as bad for violating article 25(1).

Raju giving the background: both the single judge and division bench held that the 1949 Act is constitutional in a suit and the Syedna brings an appeal and it doesn't proceed because of death of original petitioner. Syedna then files Article 32 petition against the 1949 Act.