Advocate: both articles 25 and 26 are subject to public order, health and morality. while article 25 have subject to other provision, article 26 doesn't have it. difficulty arises where there is no state action and individual asserts article 25 rights. article 25 is in this scenario is subordinate.
in puttaswamy, court held that privacy is a FR and a civil right. in Kaushal Kishore, court considered if fundamental rigth can be horizontally enforced. the majority judgment contains a chart where FRs can be horizontal and article 25 doesn't feature.
dvocate 2: when we consider this shivism or vishnativism- all these temples fall within sections thereof.
what is state's power under article 25(2)-financial administration and other secular practices.
Advocate Arvind Srevatsa: scope of article 25(1)-conscience, propagate and practice, and profess. article 26 doesn't contain subject to other provisions. article 26 is subject to only restriction of morality, health and order. they are different constitutional spheres and functions.
devaru-it should be read in the context of article 17 alone.
Advocate 3: article 25 complements article 26.
Lady advocate: it is not about gender equality but religious autonomy. courts cant judge rationality of religious faith, judicial review doesn't extend to rationality of religious belief.
no right is superior to another, but majority judgment reads article 14 as superior. this reading is irreconceivable to a judgment of 9 judge bench. this bench must accordingly restore the original constitutional equilibrium.
CJI: any young lady who wants to argue, please come forward
Advocate 2: reconceptualisation of religious denomination. if this court feels that essential religious practice is required, courts should follow [inaudible]
Advocate 3: if we understand right to conscience then probably article 25 represents layered right. the freedom of conscience denudes right to live a life and it need not be always rational and that is why it takes the form of belief. when two or more share that conscience, that is the conscience of either sect, cult or religious community.
Advocate: there is no public character, historically religious denomination has been a closed set. see consequence of applying article 25(2)(b), christian and other are excluded
J Nagarathna: except hindu religion, there is no exclusion. framers were conscious that hindu temples would not excluded the depressed classes. such a thing, caste system, is not there in other religion
Advocate: that may not be true, in islam there is division
Advocate 1: subjection of article to 26-it is inapplicable, at outset if one were to compare the language, the framers wanted to keep both articles separate. more importantly, language in which articles 25 and 26 consist supposes that article 26 was immune to article 25.
Advocate: three aspects- constitutional morality and soceital morality- there can't be constitutional morality, it will lead to multiplicity of litigation.
any sought of thing which is called denomination-it is specific to one state.
subject to public order, health and morality-there has to be subject to non-discrimination.
Advocate for Akhil Bharati makes his arguments.
Advocate Gauri Subramanium(for bombay parsi panchayat): what may appear as narrow accommodation may become template for constitutional erosion. if individual hardship becomes metric, then every boundary becomes negotiable.
Advocate Prachi: constitutional morality is nowhere mentioned in the constitution and framers didn't use it intentionally. the people who don't belong to the denomination should't interfere.