J Bagchi- you are bringing that some tenets or practice will be essential or integral and some are non essential and directorial. there will be a degree of judicial evalution or essentionally when it tests any legislation article 25(2)(b) against a religious practice

Singhvi: mylords are right but answer is

J Bagchi: either you adopt vaidyanaith and say

Singhv: i am opposing. second part of article 25(2)(b) I am disagree.

J Bagchi- first part is very well taken that any religious practice is completely distinct from secular or economic associated but when it comes to [b], when reform based legislation is made, essentionality to show that religious has itself become defaced will be a relevant test

Singhvi: these creases the 9 judge bench should clean up; should not let essentionality to come in

J Sundresh- why did they use the word social welfare instead of public order, health and morality

Singhvi: certain practice even by objective standards which would not be upheld, though they were religious practice-best example is multiple marriages.

J Baghci: even sapinda marriage, it would be said to be a reform which is not changing the core tenets of core practises of religion. whether we use the word essential or integral or borrowing from constitutionalism, would you contest the word inalienable religious practices?

Singhvi: this is third synonym for essentionality