Kumar: scope of review

1. claim of believer belonging to a particular faith comes in conflict with the belief of the group of particular custom- extent of review would necessarily have to be limited in such a situation. courts only would have the power to determine whether there is an extent of such belief or faith in the denomination and if so, the right of the denomination would prevail over the rights of the individual believer subject to public order, morality and health

2. when there is an interstate dispute between two believers within the same denomination or between two denomination with regards to custom, practices consistent with the nature of dispute as being purely and substantially religious- court would reform from entering into purely religious thicket

3. where claims of non believer came in conflict to the belief of a denominational group with regard to a particular custom or practice- the proceedings has to vitiated for the lack of locus standi, sabarimala is the classic example

4. when state makes law- where legislative measures addressing practices and customs of a denomination are put in iusses in judicial proceedings, jurisdiction of the court would only extent to examining whether such legislative measures are strictly within the confines of the restrictions explicitly mentioned in article 26