Kaul: therefore individual article 25 claims can't overrive the denomination lawful exercise of article 26(b) unless one of these three heads are enganged. if individual article 25 claims could routinely override article 26, the essential of denominational autonomy would be hollowed out, defeating the constitutional purpose behind article 26.

refers to Devaru- it doesn't in principle of law says article 26(b) is subject to article 25(2)(b). It is only in the specific context of entry into temples. otherwise it says that both rights are coequal of equal strenght. in fact it goes on to say that in all other religious matters, article 26(b) would be given full play, except for the issue of entry into religious temples.