Supreme Court Observer

Today’s hearing on the ECI Appointments Act, 2023 focused on a critical question: Is a 2-judge Bench sufficient to hear a challenge to this first-of-its-kind law? We report: scobserver.in/reports/eci-ap…

Today, the #SupremeCourt reserved judgement in the Sabarimala Reference. Across 16 days, parties argued on questions of denominational autonomy, temple entry, constitutional morality and the future of the essential religious practices doctrine. Report: scobserver.in/reports/sabari…

#SupremeCourt reserves judgement in the Sabarimala Reference after 16 days of arguments. Visit the case page to learn more about the background, and access judgement summary and hearing reports: scobserver.in/cases/kantaru-…

The Bench reserved judgement.

On Day 16, the Sabarimala Reference is expected to conclude. The nine-judge Bench will hear the amici and rejoinder submissions. Follow this thread to get live updates from the Court. Day 16 Report (To-be updated): scobserver.in/reports/sabari…

Singh: Please employ constitutional validity to reflect why a law has violated either Part III, certain schedules of the constitution or perhaps, against some other provision of the constitution.

Singh: There is some element of usefulness that is associated with retaining the doctrine of constitutional morality.

Advocate Shivam Singh begins arguments as amicus.

Parameshwar: The Parsi case is an example of whether the respondents can prove that the excommication of a woman marrying outside the community is a conscientious right under Article 26.

Parameshwar: The right to donate to a political party has also been interpreted under Article 25. This gives rise to confusion about morality and conscience.

Parameshwar: The subjection clause is to enable other people under Article 25 to claim their rights. Article 25 is the only place where the prohibitions under Articles 15 and 16 become a right.

Parameshwar: Article 13 was an obiter as far as the 2018 judgement in Sabarimala is observed.

Parameshwar: Article 13 is a wider formulation. If your Lordships are to interpret Article 13, all customs and practice shal shall denuded.

Parameshwar: A deity is the collective manifestation of the worshippers. It cannot be a factor of rational investigation.

Justice Sundresh: You can trace the right to entry under Article 25(2)(b). It is an enabling provision, but there is a formal expression of a right.

Parameshwar: What Article 35 seeks to protect are preconstitutional laws. It does not protect temple entry as such. Neither does Article 25(2) protect customs and practices. It is protected under Article 25(1).

Parameshwar: If the three objects, coalesce -- beliefs, believers and the subject of belief -- it is then that the matter will resolve itself.

Parameshwar: If you are a believer, you can walk in. The temple entry is only to be reformed for believers.

Parameshwar: Temple entry is a matter of struggle. Temple entry is not just to be situated under Article 25(2)(b), but it should also be located under Article 25(1).

Parameshwar: One of the criticisms of Devaru is that he strives to balance Article 25(1) and Article 26. I must submit that the right under Article 25(1) is not an absolute right.

Parameshwar: Justice superstition was wrong when he said that there is no right to believe in supertition. You have the right to believe in superstition but there are certain practices that arise out of that is the core of social reforms.