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

#BREAKING: After 16 days of marathon hearing, Sabarimala reference finally comes to an end.

order reserved, compilation of the written submissions can be submitted till 29 May.

Shivam: when it comes to invalidation of legislation, the first being part III violation, schedule VII or 265 violation-my submission is please employ constitional morality to understand the depth of violation. for instance, in cricket- there are recognised modes of dismissals- you can't be declared out for violating sportsmen spirit. please use morality to reflect what is the reason behind such provision and not for a standalone provision.

when we see what is constitutional morality- we have seen long line of decisions- what is relevant- please don't have a prestanding power because presumption of constitutionality will also be attached. morality is extremely abstract and can be varied from person to person. the spirit of cricket can be understood by different empires differently so is constitutional morality. 

Amicus Shivam Singh: on constitutional morality-my submission the idea or the conception deemed would be somewhere in the middle that there is some value or some element of usefulness in retraining the doctrine of constitutional morality at the same time not using it for striking the legislation.

Parmeshwar: double proportionality test doesn't apply on article 25(2) this was based on electoral bond case which itself is based on obiter that there is a hierarchy of rights

Dhavan: as amicus we take position, he argued what is a position neither taken by this side or that side

CJI: all of you have a right to disagree

SG Mehta: i have serious objection to this kind of objection made by the amicus, amicus is appointed by the court. we don't lose our civility. you should not have don't wearing your gown, you are a part in person

I would request mr singh to need not be couched down by common of dhavan

Parmeshwar: mylords have to see the commonness.

sikhism- entire religion claims denomination through gurudwara. but it may not be the same with other religion.

Parmeshwar: a restrictive meaning of the term denomination completely prejudices the right. there are denominational practices in this country without strict organisation or name.

Sabarimala is the example- they asked for name, distinctivness and nobleness, and syncretic traditions

J Nagarathna: article 25(2) is read into article 25(1) so there is a limitation

J Sundresh: which article to take or leave it, you are saying based on factual scenario one has to consider

J Nagarathna: it must have something to do with religion, it has to be harmonised

Parmeshwar: primary responsiblity lies with legislature but that doesnt mean mylords are not conferred

CJI: as a constitutional court we can't surrender that

Parmeshwar: on article 13, it has been argued that narsu appa malli has been overruled- my submission article 13 has wider implication and it is not a question formulated before this bench.

what was argued in sabarimala was not the personal law. there was a rule which was put on challenge so any observation on article 13 is obiter.

Parmeshwar: we can't be put at a mercy to claim temple entry. everyone harijan, all classes are protected.

J Nagarathna: in the case of sabriamala, the rule itself prohibited

Parmeshwar: the court sees if the denominational right is preserved

J Nagarathna: it may not be a denominational temple at all

J Sundresh: article 25(2)(b) is declaratory, its a formal expression of entry