Vaidyanathan: the argument was article 25 was hypotheically absent there would be no article 26- article 26 will still protect denominational rights.

in shirur mutt this court said denominations have complete autonomy. article 26 operates on its own.

the denominational right to manage is not an aggregation of individual rights, its quite distinct and different.

shirur mutt recognised this when it held that what constitutes religious practice is to be recognised by the denomination itself, it doesn't follow from article 25.

since both operate in distinct fields, there is no need ofr harmonious construction.

individual can't claim a right to worship in a denomination that overrides the denominational right to prescribe the manner of worship.

devaru, the reasoning is incorrect conclusion may be right. a temple was found to be a denomination and of public character in civil suit. the issue was exclusion of harijan was right or wrong- devaru should be overruled. the conclusion article 25(2)(b) overrides article 26 is per incurium of shirur mutt. the interpretation discriminates against hindu denominations.