Subramanium: let us take the example of superstitions or practice which are abhorent t constitutional morality , legislature can interfere on the grounds of social welfare and reforms. so its not that social welfare and reform is very limited.

J Bagchi: word is social reform and directive principles are constitutional visions so will the constitutional visions of the state be a part of social reform

Subramanium:very profound question, if you look at the preamble, there is coexistence of justice: political, social and economic.

J Baghci: why I am asking is we are delving on the question of constitutional morality vis a vis public morality. now if we are trying to eviscerate the two or differentiate the two, so when it comes to legislative competence of making inroads should we again make compartments between social reforms and constitutional reforms through enforcing visions as envisaged in Part IV as fundamental duties

Subramanium: mylords have said that constitutional morality could be conscience of one person but someone else may have a different standard of morality to judge it. as far as constitutional idelogy and assurance is concerned, its relevant for the state. if this freedom has to be preserved as a part of the basic fundamental freedoms which are integral to the basic structure, this freedom of religion and conscience which is inherent, then I am afraid we will have to read the power of legislation very strictly. And it must be able to establish a direct nexus between the need for that reform and the objective sought to be achieved by that legislative to accomplish that reform. otherwise, mylords, article 25(2)(b) will be completely overarching, or shall we say, it will be a silent inroad into religion

J Nagarathna: yes. suppose the kerala rules would have said in the name of social reforms, the entry of women between the age of 10 to 50 to the temple is permitted, is it an invasion or could we say its not an essential pratice and therefore upheld. what is the extent of invasion there?

Subramanium: even in that case, your lordships would have to be satisfied and would need to undertake an inquiry to see whether the exclusion as a part of ancient tradition, custom or usage 1. did not fundamentally take away the rights of the devotees to go to temple-that is the test. in other words, if its in a limited category, and its based upon a rational and it is a custom and a usage and it becomes to a denomination.

I submit with respect in such a case, if the usage is present, custom is present, it is entitled to respect ipso fact as a part of that tradition. Customs and usages can't be thrown away

J Nagarathna: it can be struck down but need not to be on the basis of essential religious practice, merely because of an invasion into the religious practice it can be struck down. it is only a cloak or colour of social reform