Justice Nagarathna: If its not a matter of religion, file a civil suit.

Justice Nagarathna: Whether this ban on lady marrying outside religion... is this a matter of religion.

Khambata: No. Even the HC notes as a matter of fact that religion doesn't prescribes this. Nothing excommunicates a Parsi lady after inter marriage. Other side highest case is inter marriage is frowned upon... but nothing to oust them from the religion.

CJI Kant: Questions 1, 2, 3 and 4, we have understood, are predominantly questions of fact. Predominantly, yes. And 5 and 6 concern the legal consequences.

What my learned sister pointed out is that if the issue concerns reform, and if it is fundamentally a question of fact, then it would require evidence. So to that extent, perhaps we may also be inclined to agree that these issues would require judicial determination. The question would arise only thereafter.

Justice Sundresh: You want us to decide between rights between A and B. Kaushal Kishore et cetera dealt with non-state actors... How does this come under the purview of judicial review. You may file a suit etc. We will have thousands of cases in such nature..

Justice Nagarathna: The respondents trust will not come under Article 12.

Senior Advocate Khambata: Let me be very clear. If a belief or practice is proved unambiguously to be the genuine belief of a community or denomination, then a judge is bound to accept it. But the proof has to exist. Your Lordships have explained this in several decisions. Shirur Mutt itself recognized limits on judicial review. Bijoe Emmanuel also stated that the Court would determine whether the belief is genuinely and conscientiously held as part of the profession or practice of religion.

Senior Advocate Darius Khambata: I think I must clarify very clearly what my position is. It is not exactly the same as that of the learned Solicitor General, but it is also not an extreme position. I am trying to tread a middle path.

I have broadly summarized what should be ring fenced from judicial review and where judicial review should not, as a matter of principle, be exercised.

That would mean that the right is not available only against State action, but can also be asserted independently of State action. That is broadly the position. As I pointed out earlier, under Article 226, Your Lordships have recognized such a right even against a public charitable trust. In my case also, there is a public charitable trust involved.

A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court is examining seven important legal questions concerning religious rights and freedoms in India. The top court began hearing the reference arising out of the Sabarimala review case on April 7.

The Court's verdict will have a major impact on various cases, including the case concerning whether women of menstruating ages can be allowed to enter the Sabarimala temple in Kerala.

The reference is connected to the top court's September 2018 verdict in which a 5-judge Constitution Bench, by a majority of 4:1, allowed women of all ages to enter the hilltop shrine in Kerala. That decision overturned the tradition that restricted the entry of women of menstruating age.

Dozens of review petitions were filed questioning the correctness of this ruling. In November 2019, the Supreme Court pronounced its judgment on the review petitions.

It held that larger issues pertaining to the Essential Religious Practices Test, interplay between Articles 25 and 26 on one hand and Article 14 on the other and the conflict between the judgments in the Shirur Mutt case and Durgah Committee case will have to be decided by a larger Bench.

A nine-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant along with Justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi is hearing the matter.

The reference verdict may also have an impact on pending cases regarding the entry of Muslim Women in Dargahs /Mosques, excommunication of Parsi Women married to non-Parsis, the practice of female genital mutilation and excommunication practices in the Dawoodi Bohra community.

During the hearing on April 7, the Central government advocated for greater freedom in religious practices and asked whether courts are the appropriate forum to determine what constitutes an essential religious practice. On April 8, the government argued that that the restriction at the Sabarimala temple was not based solely on gender.

On April 15, the Court observed that one of the most difficult tasks for a court is to declare the beliefs of millions of people as wrong or erroneous, and that a religion cannot be stripped of its essential practices in the name of social reform.

On April 17, the Court observed that while adjudicating matters of faith, a constitutional authority must rise above personal religious beliefs and be guided by freedom of conscience and the broader constitutional framework.

On April 21, the Court remarked that it is aware of the limits of judicial review in religious matters and that there was no need for extensive arguments against it.

On April 22, the Court asked whether the State can invoke the principle of constitutional morality and Directive Principles of State Policy to justify social reform laws on religious matters.

On April 23, the Bench briefly debated on whether pre-constitutional religious customs could be protected by Article 25(2) of the Constitution of India. 

On April 28, the Court warned against making arguments that could project any one religion or Indian language as superior to others. 

On April 29, the Court observed that genuine women devotees of Lord Ayyappa may wait till they cross the age of 50 years to visit the Sabarimala temple. The Court also said that it does not want to play any part in the annihilation of a religion while interpreting the scope of religious freedoms on India.

In yesterday's hearing of the matter, the Bench posed tough questions on why a 2006 PIL on the Sabarimala temple entry issue was filed or entertained by the Court at all. The Court also began hearing submissions on the practice of excommunicating Parsi women who marry outside their community.

Live updates from the hearing today feature on this page.