Dhavan: reads SP Mitthal- what mylords decide will affect tribal religions too. Refers to a statement made by J Dwivedi in Keshvananda Bharati. I say that faith evolve and change overtime. That change doesn't come by statute alone but it comes from people. Ex was given that women becoming archbishops. We can go after doing social reform after social reform but if it has no meaning with how it comes with people, we might be missing the woods in the trees.

secular framework of India-the followings were rejected by the constituent assembly- "in the name of god", "in the name of god/almighty/Mahatma Gandhi/Grace of Parmeshwar..." all this was rejected, we have a secular constitution.

After Partition, Constitution was a solemn promise to heal a diverse India. A question fell from mylords to as if this happens, will be divide the society? healing is very much in your hand on the interpretation of articles 25 and 26.

I will address the question which ladyship asked-what is the connection with Sabarimala? J Khanwilkar, who was with the majority [in sabarimala judgment] changed his mind. Justice Gogoi replaced Justice Mishra [who authored the sabarimala judgment] and J Indu Malhotra become the majority are those responsible for this reference.

In the earlier judgment, while Misra CJ, Khanwilkar and Chandrachud were of the view that the exclusion of women prayer was not an essential practice, Nariman J proceeded on the basis that it was an essential practice and thus concurring with Malhotra J.

On the meaning of morality in Article 25-6, while Misra CJ, Khanwilkar and Chandrachud JJ were of the view that morality meant ‘constitutional morality’ (based on liberal egalitarianism) Nariman J felt this meant it was something abhorrent to a civilized society. Justice Malhotra took a different view on constitutional morality to reinforce secularism and need for religious freedom.

Chandrachud J insisted that ‘other provisions of Part –III’ was also applicable to Article 26 which did not contain such a phrase, thus defying the text. Nariman J held this was to be determined on a case to case basis.

A crucial question related to whether the Ayyappan practice in this case was a denomination or sect. If not it would deprived of the institutional protection of Article 26 altogether and confined to Article 25. Malhotra J’s dissent illuminates a different view.