Sabarimala reference hearing: Live updates from Supreme Court - Day 11

Adv: If tomorrow I build a temple like the Khajuraho temple at my place, then others will object...

CJI: if you don't know anything about a temple.. please do not refer to all of them. Please don't waste our time. Just proceed and finish.

Adv: Justice Gajendragadkar had stated that since religion was age-old and if a belief is an age-old belief and then turns into dogma...these turn into superstitions due to the passage of time.

Adv: What are the essential characteristics of a religious denomination? Sabarimala is not to be raised here. Still it has been done.

This reference order has not been registered as a reference case as per Supreme Court rules: Adv

Justice Bagchi: if you go through the SC order..the power of CJI to make a reference was traced to Article 32 as per a Supreme Court decision since such a power is not subject to Supreme Court Rules.

Adv for India Young Lawyers Association: This particular reference was not maintainable. But there are other cases I would like to highlight.

CJI: You can come to page 33.

Adv: We have to bring to Your Lordships’ notice what judgments have already been passed, whether for review or not, so that the reference is not maintainable. Three judges are referring the matter. The speaking order does not refer this matter to a nine-judge bench. The speaking order says that the matter is referred to a seven-judge bench. That was the understanding given to our Honourable Bench as well.

In this context, the decision of the seven-judge bench of this Court in Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras versus Shirur Mutt, holding that what are essential religious practices of a particular religious denomination should be left to be determined by the denomination itself, and the subsequent view of the five-judge bench in Durgah Committee versus Syed Hussain Ali, carving out a role for the Court in this regard to exclude what the Court determines to be secular practices or superstitious beliefs, seemed to be in apparent conflict requiring consideration by a larger bench.

What did you file the PIL? What good has come out of it? Justice Nagarathna

Adv: I will address all of it.

Justice Kumar: Has your organisation passed a resolution to file a PIL? Has your president signed it?

Adv: there was a threat to the petitioner and police protection was given.

Justice Kumar: come to the point.

Adv: Justice Dipak Misra has not allowed it at all...there were objections..

CJI Kant: Please don't take judges names like this. He was a CJI. You can say the Supreme Court said this... And answer the simple question.

Adv: no there was no resolution

Justice Sundresh: This is nothing but an abuse of the process of law, that too before a nine-judge constitution bench. Go through the issues and finish. We don't want to embarrass you further.

Adv for Young Lawyers Association: There were four articles in the newspaper in the month of June 2006. Kindly see.

One was by Barkha Dutt. Then there was “Touching Feet and Attracting Touches a Deity and Causing an Uproar” by Sherwani Pandit. Then the third one was “Keeping the Same Losing Our Religion.” This was the third by Veer Saraswati. And the fourth one is very important, “The Sex Slump Felt Sabarimala.”

CJI: okay so it was based on press reports

Justice Nagarathna: How does a juristic body like yours have a belief? This is for an individual. You don't have a conscience

Justice Aravind Kumar: who is your president ?

Adv: Naushad Ali

Justice Nagarathna: How is he a believer? Justify how you clarify juristic point.