Sabarimala Reference | Live Updates From Supreme Court 9-Judge Bench [Day 8]

J Sundresh: there may be private denominations that can become public character. India is such a wonderful country, each place is different, some have family deity etc

Raj: why we are before you? for 75 years, the interpretation given for the religious denomination-rights of majority of hindus, I say so coming from Tamil Nadu and Kerala, 95% don't belong to any denomination which is so-called approved by this court, where do we go?

J Nagarathna: temples follow Shivaite, Vaishnavite worship, and that is why they are called denominations. Now, in a Shivaite type of worship, Vaishnavite can't say we would like a Vaishnavite form of worship. there is a difference. Therefore, that form of worship is protected. that has nothing to do with organisation; that is not necessary. A Hindu is a hindu and he can go to any temple.

J Sundresh: according to you, there is a conflict between articles 25 and 26?

Raj: article 25(2)(b) may infringe the rights under article 26

J Sundresh: then the problem would be how do we give effect to?

J Sundresh: tell us whom does article 25(1) applies to?

Raj: article 25 first part will apply to all persons

J Sundresh: first part speaks about persons so it applies to all persons but it will not apply to the denomination? what does standalone provision mean? see, if you make a submission try to make it legally sustainable. if 100 people join together and make a religious denomination, you say they have a right under article 25(1) and can be regulated under article 25(2) but it can't be under article 26?

Raj: the individual petitioners rights to enter the sabarimala temple under article 25(1) must yield to the rights of the community of Lord Ayyappa devotees under article 26(b).

Raj: on primacy- a structural primacy of article 26 over the individual rights under article 25(1). when there is no subject to other part is mentioned, and taking it to entire structure of article 26, if there is any conflict between article 25(1) and article 26(b), article 26(b) should prevail.

Sr Adv Jayanth Muthu Raj (women devotees supporting the existing custom in the temple): the conflicting interest is between two individuals in exercising rights under article 25(1) as well as qua article 26(b).

refers to Hoffman's rights and duties as a correlatives-meaning that every fundamental right owed by a person imposes a corresponding duty on others to not infringe it. an individual right to profess and practice according to their conscience include the right to disagree with the existing practice or practices. however, the existence of this right can't be allowed to question the rationality of another belief, faith and religious practices through the court of law.

they may agree with me, or they may not agree with me. but they can't go the court saying that let this practice be irrational or bad.

Radhakrishnan: if you are seeing paragraphs 3 and 4 of the writ petition, all sorts of denigration remarks about lord ayyappa. divine baby-they are not believing. scurrilous remarks. the state government is the trustee and the board is the administration. these are all slanderious, libellous remarks. Section 499(defamation) [but] no action by the state government. the child is an infant, lord ayyappa. even now it is continuing.

J Sundresh: don't go into all this

Radhakrishnan: With respect to sabarimala, they[writ petitioners] have not created any prejudice. they are pratically non-believers. there was a litigant in the Kerala High Court with respect to Makarajyothi. It can be seen at the east end side of the temple, but when a non-believer filed a writ petition and pleaded that there should be an inquiry because it is man-made and all this. now, the state government took a firm stand that these are all relating to religious faith and worship so we are not conducting an inquiry. why are they not taking a stand in this writ petition?

they are saying this should be referred to pundits. i wonder if any pundits of this contemporary area can sit in judgment of a Parasurama who has devised the puja vidi in Sabarimala

Radhakrishnan: with respect to judicial review, judicial review can't be questioned by anybody. whenever situation warrants, mylords would be conducting judicial review but mylords will be very relutant to enter into the ecclesistical jurisdiction.