J Nagarathna: it should act as a stricture or an aiding tool for protection

Subramanium: [reads article 25] social welfare and reforms must not be a cloak, that is, it should not be a colourable legislation which actually seems to invade religious freedoms under article 26(b). Suppose there is something called social welfare and reforms, can it touch religious practice or essential religious practice? there it is necessary to satisfy the words social welfare and reforms. there is am element of scrutiny involved by the court to truly examine whether it is advacing social reform or it is nominee under social reform

J Kumar: in case of multiple accepted religions or practices, what is the juridical basis on which the court can interpret? whether the court can declare one is authoritative of the other or when a dispute arises within the religious practice or accepted practice within the religion?

Subramanium: one is intra denominatiomal dispute, the nature of a practice. in such cases you will need evidence.

the court asked a fundamental question, is the court devoid of adjudicatory power? the answer is the court is not devoid of adjudicatory power. there is no other place where legal rights or legal injury can be established except in a court

J Kumar: so the court will sit in the arm chair of ascertaining the theology of the practice?

Subramanium: there will be evidence

J Kumar: can we take that articles 226 or 32 will be barred?

Subramanium: in case of denominational fights, which requires evidence, i can say that articles 226 and 32 may be precluded. But if, suppose, there is no dispute at all. we can have cases where there is absolutely no dispute on fundamentals, then in that case the question may plainly arise whether its void or not

J Nagarathna: vis a vis the state

Subramanium: yes