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

Parmeshwar: between superstition v religion, the line is very thin

Parmeshwar: ask a rationalist, he would say entire religion is superstition

J Nagarathna: reading dpsp is not to give a way to superstition

Parmeshwar: one man's religion is another's superstition

J Kumar: there is where you read it with DPSP

Parmeshwar: but my concern is with the scientific temperment duty

Parmeshwar: what was a test between secular v religious has become what is best religious practice. Dr Ambedkar said look at the activity, see whether it is essentially religious-from essentiality of activity to esseentiality of religion

articles 25, 26, 29 and 21 needs to be read together- entire spaces in language that are influenced by religious thought for instance, the Bhakti tradition.

Parmeshwar: you may not necessarily find doctrinal belief for tribal religion. you will not be able to trace where it belongs to. devatas are equally an important part of faith and requires constitutional protection. Bishnois in Rajasthan, please prove doctrinally the trees and animals are a part of your spiritual existence-they won't be able to.

ERP tries to privilege some practice over the other.

J Sundresh: it is elitist

J Nagarathna: it can be used as a tool, but you can't say just because its not an ERP it can't be. its an aid not a test

Parmeshwar: it is very easy to categorise that article 26 is a collective of individual- that is not true, over the years, collective organised religion develops its own identity. when mylords say articles 25 is conflict with 26, its also other people's right which is also under challenge. my submission is reading of articles 25 and 26 must not collapse the identity of article 26 to 25. article 26 has doctrinal character and that is why the relation is not merely individual v denomination, article 26 has its identity of its own.

the word religion would inform the word religious practice, matters of religion and denominational rights.

J Sundresh: how do you draw the line? ultimately the conflict is between individual v denominational right

Parmeshwar: in the india, article 25 is the right to seek-mylords must create the constitutional space to pursue to inquiry- indian tradition has been pursue inquiry not just dogma. if mylords are able to create that space, then mylords are say no practice is small or big or essential or non essential. the biggest problem has been it seeks to categorise some practices as essential or non essential- it constricts the right to belief and the right to explore.

Parmeshwar: mylords have all arrows to balance to the application of other FRs. but my submission is doesn't exclude the application of FRs because we don't know what judicial circumstances would come. build in safeguard like you said we will look at who is coming, what is the locus? and matters of pure denominational conflict there is no question of 14, etc and third, succession to religious offices. I think its in interest of constitutional interpretation that Part III must be in full play.

J Nagarathna: so long it has nexus, it can be considered