Sabarimala Reference : Live Updates From Supreme Court 9-Judge Bench [Day 16]

Gopal: article 14 is the very antithesis of arbitrariness, but its quite distinct from the personal freedom under article 25.

article 25(1) is wide expansive sphere of individual freedom- there are stages of belief and disbelief, withdrawal of disbelief etc., simultaneously, you can move from other teacher to another. all this is protected under article 25(1) and therefore, we have to treat conscience independently.

in article 25(1) why is the collective not there? everybody said its the repository of individual and collective and article 26 is merely an enlongation of article 25(1).

an interpretation by which fullness by which a right is upheld is more preferred than which dimnishes a right. if the words of the constitition is clear, there is no scope to apply the theory of implied limitation.

the nature of individual freedom under article 25(1) is not the same as denominational freedom under article 26.

Gopal: Ms Jaising said that very accurately that these tests have nothing to do with this. its incapable of application. articles 25 and 26 may overlap, but they are capable of operating in distinct spheres; there would be no tension and conflict. even the quesiton of harmonisation would not arise- harmonisation is a sound rule to solve the mild tension between two competing rules.

One point of J Varale on rationality- the question stayed with me throughout the hearing-the scope and length of judicial review is not the same as Article 14. In other words, an irrational factor is relevant with Article 14, but for Article 25, the test of rationality doesn't apply.

Rohatgi: last 75 years, there has been no excommunication. he doesn't have some diabolical bond that he can do anything.

Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium: 4 submissions- judgment of HC of Gujarat erroneous-majority said that if she is still carrying out her faith as Parsi, it is a matter of evidence. Unanimously all judges relegated the petitioner to a suit. I sincerely urge we don't have to go into the facts of these cases.

Right located under article 25(1) or is 26 capable of independent standing

principle case plural drafting-all articles to be read together would apply to these articles 25 and 26

question about religion and religious denominations- I maintain religion is established doctrine of faith as commonly understood, denominations are those who belong to that faith-suggestion that religious denomination are extrapolate to the entirety of religion is not accurate

in our constitution, it is a misconception that we have hierarcy of rights- all FR are FRs, they are entitled to protection, they may collide but we have useful tests- reason why i say this is because of single or double proportionality, those are principles in relation to adjuding whether a right is breached and whether measure taken is proportionate or disproportionate

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi: Syedna represented the community. [answering the issue raised by bench that the 1949 Act could have been read down instead of holding it unconstitutional in Sardar Syedna judgment] 5 pages of the judgment are devoted to the intervenor which the respondents are taking that he has power excommunication etc. I am an intervenor to the 1986 writ petition.

so called Board which is not registered, he died and its taken by another. the writ is abated, there is no person. finally, Syedna judgment is a very wrong bench and a very strong bar. Bar was represented by KM Munshi, member of the constituent assembly.