inghvi: In light of the foregoing discussion repudiating the essential versus non-essential tests, Shirur Mutt and Narayana Deekshitulu qua Article 25(2)(a) may be interpreted and understood by the present Nine Judge Bench in the following manner:- a. The State can make laws regulating “economic financial political or other secular activity…. associated with religious practice.”

b. This does not mean that the State is permitted to intrude in what is admittedly considered by the individual or part of the religious group or religious denomination to be religion, religious beliefs, or religious activities.

c. Though mischaracterised by case law starting from and following after Durgah Committee misinterpreted Shirur Mutt, this is not the same as saying that laws can regulate non-essential religious activity.

d. In view of the error of the essential versus non-essential classification, this Bench should clarify that it means that what the law is regulating under Article 25(2)(a) is not religion at all, and not a non-essential religious activity.

e. The regulation is limited to economic, financial, political, or other secular activity which will inevitably arise in connection with or in association with a religious activity since the latter can never operate in vacuum or in the abstract.

f. This approach would harmonize the true spirit of Shirur Mutt and yet not do violence to the core part of the constitutional text in Article 25 in general and Article 25(2) in particular

The idea of an enquiry into the essentiality of a religious practice is anathema to Article 25(1). It is only if a religious practice is contrary to public order, morality, health, or the Part III rights of any person, that it may be interfered with, even though it may be considered to be essential to that religion- essential, four test can be applied. if not to be then, non-essential

If, however, a practice is not offensive to public order, morality, health or the Part III rights of any person, and is considered a part of religion by its adherents, then the State does not have the power to restrict or regulate it on the ground that the same is not an essential part of the religion.

J Nagarathna: on the other hand, it is like saying because it is an essential religious practice, even if its again public order, morality and health it is still protected

Singhvi:you have to divide and categorise religion