J Nagarathna: the court cannot sit in judgment as to what is an essential religious practice. well, the sabarimala controversy arises out of that can the court discover or distil and sit in judgment

J Sundresh: concept of essential religious practice, as you rightly said, if it exists, its renewed to the benefit of either a religious denomination or a group of persons seeking rights under article 25(1). when it comes to judicial review, article 25(2)(b) can on contigency be exercised over religious practice. that is why the distinction between article 25(1)(a) and (b). your argument is that you can still go and satisfy yourself by the court on the existence on the existence of essential practice preliminarily from the point of the view of the practitioner or the person who has that belief so as to exercise the power of judicial review in which case it will be a little more circumspect.