Singhvi: e. Once a belief or practice is found factually established in what is accepted as a religion, then any further judicial application of a supposed essentiality test would amount to engrafting into Article 25, an additional restriction/derogation on what has already been found to constitute religion, apart and distinct from the four derogations already listed after much care and caution by our founding fathers and mothers.

f. Any hypothetical, absurd or reprehensible practice would frequently be excluded at the threshold by not finding the collectivity concerned to be a religion at all;

g. Other similarly reprehensible practices would fall foul of the four derogations already listed in Article 25;

h. However, if a seemingly or allegedly absurd or reprehensible practice does not fall foul of (f) or (g) above, then it cannot be struck down by courts, if it is otherwise found to exist as a custom, belief, and practice of the religion concerned.

J Sundresh: let us test this with the amendment brought by them under section 6 of the hindu succession act- this came from sapinda principle. now under which provision the amendment would come where the concept of coparcenary has been removed and the sapinda principle has be let go by to give equal rights to women-will it be traced under article 25(2)(b)

J Nagarathna: article 15(3) also

J Sundresh: if article 25 is for the state to make law, what extent the court can go into?