Sabarimala Reference Hearing in Supreme Court Today Live Updates: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that Hindus must unite and unify, observing that temples cannot exclude others on denominational lines and that such exclusion would ultimately weaken the denomination itself.
Justice Nagarathna responded tosenior advocate Dwivedi, who argued that a religious denomination is a closed and disciplined group protected under Article 26.
Story continues below this ad
The apex court previously said that, as far as social welfare and social reform are concerned, it is a very wide term. The apex court further added that the state is not a stranger and not an alien.
“The state represents the will of the people, and if the people want a certain social evil to be reformed, that power can be exercised,” the Chief Justice of India added.
The Supreme Court was hearing the Sabarimala case, which started today with the continuation of the submission of the senior advocate Subramanium.
The case concerns the discrimination against women in religious places, including the Sabarimala temple, and the scope of religious freedom under the Constitution.
Previously, the apex court, on the sixth day of hearing, cautioned senior advocate J Sai Deepak from attacking the powers of judicial review, while pointing out that there are limitations.
The apex court has given this response to the arguments of Deepak, in which he submitted that the state does not include the judiciary in its judicial capacity, and therefore, the question of writ petitions challenging those practices on the ground that it violates any of those subjects to provisions does not even arise simply because those powers are limited to the state.
Nine-judge bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant will preside over the bench, which will include Justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi.
Questions for consideration: There are seven questions for consideration before the court:
- What is the scope and ambit of the right to freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution of India?
- What is the interplay between the rights of persons under Article 25 of the Constitution and the rights of religious denominations under Article 26?
- Whether the rights of a religious denomination under Article 26 of the Constitution are subject to other provisions of Part III of the Constitution, apart from public order, morality and health?
- What is the scope and extent of the word ‘morality’ under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, and whether it is meant to include constitutional morality?
- What is the scope and extent of judicial review of a religious practice under Article 25 of the Constitution?
- What is the meaning of the expression “Sections of Hindus” occurring in Article 25 (2) (b) of the Constitution?
- Whether a person not belonging to a religious denomination or religious group can question a practice of that religious denomination or religious group by filing a PIL?
What happened in the last hearing?
In the last hearing so far, the arguments have been concluded on behalf of the Centre, temple devotee organisations and the Travancore Devaswom Board.
Justice Nagarathna, previously, also talked about the genesis of the dispute and pointed out that Justice Nagarathna: Atheists do not believe in the existence of God, and agnostics believe in the higher strength of what you say, a higher kind of form, or something.
The submission from Senior advocates Gopal Sankaranarayanan and J Sai Deepak was concluded on April 21 and both the counsels put forward various questions supporting their plea, and the bench heard the same and intervened where required.
The pleas were centred around analysing the relationship between Article 25 (2) and 26, and the meaning of a denominational institution.
Senior advocate V Giri argued that the Hindu religion considers the deity as a living being and the idol is free from all impurities that attach to it at the hands of the artists.
