Sabarimala Reference : Live Updates From Supreme Court 9-Judge Bench [Day 10]

Jaising: some counsels argued something for one religion, something for other. dhavan said article 26 is about autonomy. did he say as a matter of autonomy, can a women be kept from entering?

Jaising: the questions before you in which you will have to deal with article 21, there are questions no before you for instance anti-conversion law which will be decided by this.

J Nagarathna: the latter position will be decided on the position of law we clarify.

Jaising: I was told by one of my juniors that karnataka endownment act, the judges have deserved a judgment they had reserved.

Jaising: one factual important-constituent assembly debated for 4 days on articles 25 and 26. we are on 10th day, like we are a constituent assembly to do the job which was left uncomplete. they are asking you to overrule shirur mutt and devaru-but in reference, you can't do that. it can be overruled in proceed prescribed by law only when per incuriam.

J Bagchi: we can declare the law from what is different from the laws decided.

Jaising: i don't dispute your jurisdiciton but i will dispute your binding effect-it will only be an opinion

J Bagchi: we can always interplay articles 25 and 26 and trangulation from what devaru and others understood

Jaising: i am only dispute the binding effect because it doesn't come from a cause before you. J Nagarathna reminds me again and again about the cause of action

J Bagchi: it has been decided by the former CJI. reference form has been decided, it has to be decided on substance and merit

Jasing: i am on the nature of opinion to be delivered

J Nagarathna: they attempted to go to the temples prior the judgment

Jaising: no. as for Bindu is concerned, she was taken to temple at the age of 11 and after that this judgment came, she succeed once. she was mob-lynched. Kankadurga, she had problems and her family came down as to why did she [go to the temple].

the women, Bindu, had to migrate from Kerala. once she had approached me and said she would migrate to abroad. she happens to be a lawyer.

J Nagarathna: why did you say so softly

J Sundresh; lawyer is a social engineer; she did her part

Jaising: i think the facts of the case are significant

Jaising: violation of equality is a substantial deprivation of right under article 25(1). is equality a basic feature, will you use the provisions of Part III?

what happened is, after judgment is declared, they went to sabarimala, when they came out the tanthrik did a shudhikaran [purification].

these are the two women who succeeded in going to the sabarimala. no one else because the state didn't cooperate

J Nagarathna: are they devotees? which state

Jaising: they are from kerala, both are hindus

Jaising: who am I representing? this court didn't stay the sabarimala judgment till day, remains in full force. only questions have been referred. if i wish to, I am entitled to rely on questions of law in that.

J Sundresh: that's better

Jaising: I am representing two women-one Scheduled Caste-when you keep a SC out from visiting temple, are you violating article 17? is untouchability prohibition for men or it extends to all persons? all men can enter, no restriction on case

J Nagarathna: you are not represented because you are SC but because you belong to 10-50 group

J Kumar: ladies are not [un]permitted

Jaising: this period, is the most creative, you can't tell me to live half a life! that would hit substantive deprivation as per Devaru

Jaising: 3. what is the trangulation of the provisions in constitution-reference to Menaka Gandhi-organic way of looking at constitution

i have collapsed 7 questions into 1-this court will not recognise any practice whether in denomination or articles 25 or 26 which violates article 17

Sr Adv Indira Jaising: I intend to do 2-3 things. I will address arguments only relevant for my proposition.

how does one read the constitutional text-how is the law? a statute may be read in a semantic manner but not the constitution

i will limit myself to rights claimed by my people-right of temple entry

Respondents to begin their arguments today.