J Sai Deepak Argues in SC on Sabarimala- "That Argument cannot be used!"

Ajouté : 2026-05-10

[00:00:00]rights under 251 of the denomination are different from the rights of the very same denomination under 26. So what I'm trying to summit is 25 addresses a different basket of rights. 26 addresses a different basket of rights of the very same denomination which means kindly take look at A, B, C and D. Let me just explain this argument from my perspective.

[00:00:20]>> See one way before you do that 26B is in matters of religion. I'm so grateful.

[00:00:26]>> But 252B is with regard to social welfare and reform.

[00:00:30]>> I'm grateful. That's the point.

[00:00:31]>> Distinction.

[00:00:32]>> Distinction has to be drawn. Therefore, I'm trying to make the submission of making social welfare or reform.

[00:00:39]>> You can't affect 26B.

[00:00:40]>> You can't encroach upon matters of religion.

[00:00:42]>> I'm so grateful. So my submission would be kindly think of religious denomination as this branch which enjoys two sets of rights. One set of rights falls under 251. Another set of rights falls under 26. You can certainly affect 251 rights because that's what 252 permits. But in the garb of doing so, you will not venture into the realm of 26 because there are only three permissible lenses permitted for 26.

[00:01:11]Morality, order, and health. That's >> what Dr. Singi also.

[00:01:15]>> I am grateful. The difference is Dr. Singh's argument connects 252 with 26.

[00:01:19]I'm saying you don't need to go down that path as far as 26 is concerned because if you can delineate the scope of rights between 25 and 26 this neither here nor there argument my apologies I have to use the biblical term dog in the manger that argument cannot be used or that kind of an approach cannot be had where you sail in both boats in my humble submission >> you'll you will require judicial review then you'll have to come to court to say my right under 26p is affected >> in the garb of making 25 >> no under 25 QB >> I'm so grateful >> then you have to come to court >> I have to come to court therefore >> I agree state action is aminable to judicial review I stand by that position that's what my written submission says as as much in any way in fact I have some answers even to the questions that were raised by the other members of the let me just answer this question >> so Mr. Deepak >> please please.

[00:02:08]>> If this interpretation is accepted >> please >> that the affairs relating to matters of religion >> yes >> and the right to profess practice propagate religion >> yes >> are basically a subset affairs of religion in the bigger set of right >> in the universal set. You you yield to the argument essential religious practice is what is relatable to 26B whereas other religious activities are more generic and is 25 >> I have a slightly different approach to it can I request my Lord to kindly indulge this argument I could be wrong but I nevertheless let me canvas and ventilate what I think is the position >> because you are now diverging from 25 to a secular activity and religious activity in complete different >> I'm with my >> you are mirroring 26B >> against the bigger canvas of 251 >> and in this situation whenever a social reform legislation comes into being please >> or whenever any exercise is undertaken to test right >> the matters of religion under 25p right >> the court will be entitled to look into the essentiality or as it is said integrality so that there is no hollowing out of that ritual.

[00:03:29]>> I'm so grateful.

[00:03:30]>> This is one.

[00:03:32]>> Secondly, please also consider the interesting difference after Dr. Ambedka.

[00:03:37]>> Yes.

[00:03:38]>> Got in the idea of association, religious association, >> please.

[00:03:41]>> The word association was not used.

[00:03:44]>> Correct.

[00:03:44]>> But denomination was used in inspiration from article 44 of the Irish constitution.

[00:03:50]>> Please. So denomination needs to be given a more contextual interpretation than association under 191c.

[00:03:57]>> Can I respond in the reverse order in the in the way the questions have been put because I think it's the easiest from my own memory. Please consider this. The comparison with article 44 of the Irish constitution and I think we have actually discussed this so that this argument can be presented. The Irish constitution recognizes the existence of God. It is not a secular constitution is the first submission.

[00:04:17]Second, Irish constitution effectively treats denomination as a congregation because every congregation is a denomination within that particular uh legislation. Therefore, no exalted standards are sought to be met or imposed or cast as far as article 44 of the Irish constitution is concerned. The surprising part is by the time denomination trans I mean it it it travels from Ireland to India denomination suddenly becomes a higher right which is not the case because the anomaly it will create is denominational institutions are somehow great they enjoy greater protection with respect to state compared to non-denominational institutions that would imitate article 14 which is to say that we can't interpret this in such a way and that is perhaps where my disagreement comes with Mr. Shankar Nan on the issue that denominational institutions if they're elevated to such a status that non-denominational institutions are practically seen as destitutes as far as constitutional rights are concerned that's a violation of article 14 >> sir >> if I may >> if non-denominational institutions are enjoying article 251 right >> but they won't get the same protection as 26 >> because there is a reasonable classification with regard to a greater commonality in denomination institution than the diffused nature of a non-demon denomination religious activity.

[00:05:36]>> I understand where my lord's argument is coming from but I'm unable to convince myself because of the peculiar history of the Irish constitution because they've used the word denomination as a synonym for congregation across >> I follow your constitution.

[00:05:49]>> So that's one mil kindly give me just 10 more minutes.

[00:05:54]I'll try to wrap it up in 10 minutes.

[00:05:56]>> I will already put minutes. No, I understand. I have not repeated anything so far. That much is clear.

[00:06:02]>> But you need to not rush so much.

[00:06:05]>> I'll just rush into that. So I'm only making the submission that the easier way would be three-fold in terms of the the lucidity of the proposition. Kindly don't elevate denomination to an exalted standard.

[00:06:17]>> Separate the set of rights between 25 and 26. Thereby state has rights with respect to 25 rights as well as 26 rights. The only difference is 26 rights will be governed by 26 and 25 rights will be governed by 252. That is the limited submission I'm trying to make.

[00:06:33]And this in in no way will do injustice either to the language. In fact, in my humble submission to be completely consistent with the history of the provision because I haven't seen anyone present an argument to say when the constitution framers, mothers and fathers and everybody else decided to use the word religious denomination, they meant this exalted standard. There is no such document to this effect.

[00:06:52]which is why I annexed all those uh all those annexes. Now minutes I just walk my lots through my written submission quickly the rest of it so that I yield space for others who have been kind enough including she superman who has been patiently waiting for me. So I'll finish quickly minutes. Could my lords kindly come to my written notes for a moment in the written note I'd request my lords to kindly come to par number 33 this bind this this spiralbound document at page number 22 par 33. Yes, >> I am conceding two things. State intervention is possible and I'm also saying that state intervention is certainly amable to judicial review. I'm making that statement. Can I read this out for the court's benefit? Just so that my position comes out again please.

[00:07:29]It is me. It is further submitted that neither in the exercise of 252 nor 26 the state can take over the institution of any religious institution citing maladministration. I'll explain where I'm coming from. 252A speaks of regulate and restrict not supersede. You can't take over the entire institution. I'm making this submission consciously in the context of HRC legislations because in several states the state is a squatter. It's a permanent tenant tenant against whom there are no eviction proceedings possible. Unfortunately, in this regard, I request the bench to kindly take a look at 31A of the constitution. Just for a moment, please take a look at 31A. Kindly see article 31A. And this argument is captured at the bottom of paragraph 33. But may I just read this for the court's benefit?

[00:08:10]>> There's no taking over as such under the uh state acts. My lady, executive officers are >> notified temple. It becomes a notified temple. Once it is a notified temple, the act will apply.

[00:08:21]>> There is a slight difference. Kindly consider this. In Tamil Nadu HRC legislation for that instance, I'm just giving an example. Specific provisions exist for constitution of trust for temples without ever giving effect to the process of appoint sorry election for trusts. The state directly applies and appoints executive officer even when there are no instances of maladministration. This honorable Supreme Court in 1965 Pandaras Sanadi as well as the Superman Swami Jman has clearly said you can take over provided there is something that smells fishy and that reason has to be recorded in writing before the state can enter into the picture. In the absence of doing so the state becomes the state starts exercising its marching powers, police powers and just enters the institution.

[00:09:00]So that is what par 33 covers. The discussion in the context of article 252A was not in respect of essential religious practice but was in the context of essentially religious practice. There is a distinction between an essential religious practice and essentially religious practice and essentially religious practice strikes a distinction between secular and religious. Essential religious practice is distilling what is religion.

[00:09:23]Therefore that entire test has been misunderstood. Please see further the reason why constitutional courts have not been listed. I'll leave this minutes then my lords may come to >> that is in the juxtaposition of a secular activity >> I'm so grateful because the HRC legislation was the subject of discussion there of 1951 so the question was what is secular activity associated with religious practice as the learned >> was in debt question was you required so much of money >> for that paraya and all that >> please >> when you are in debt >> same that I represent was before this honorable court please not see it was in debt and when you one lap of rupees was the debt in those days was very >> please know high >> princely sum in that sense.

[00:10:04]>> Yes please. So when one lakh of rupee are in debt and you want to spend so much for paraya >> please >> whether the extent of expenditure was a question and there was an inquiry and all that and ultimately >> yes >> they report they said make a scheme >> right >> the scheme was challenged matadipati there >> saying it's exorbitant and they can't meet it please >> can't you know have a scheme because I'm spending so much >> please please can I request my lady to kindly come to page number 36 parah 38 and This is on the question of civil courts and these are questions that address the issues that specifically address the questions of justice baki and justice 26.

[00:10:43]>> I just answer this one question something of interest there also >> please >> there was one practicing advocate >> please >> he wanted to take control of the mut because the matadipati was a minor and then he was very young. Please, please, please.

[00:10:56]>> And he through his friend got a power of attorney and all that, >> right?

[00:11:00]>> He started misusing that power of attorney.

[00:11:03]>> There was a suit.

[00:11:04]>> Power of attorney was terminated by the Matadipati. There was a suit and when that suit was there, all this happened because the advocate there managed all that.

[00:11:12]>> Right.

[00:11:13]>> Sorry to say that.

[00:11:18]>> And then matter landed up here and now we are in seventh test, ninth test.

[00:11:21]>> Please, >> that is the genesis of the dispute there. Please kindly >> no essential religious practice. So to answer the question that if a person within the denomination has a problem with the practice he can go to civil court or the alternative in Hindu tradition is you go set up your own sraay almost every person it's not as >> question of we understand your question of religious practice comes then civil court >> I'm so grateful can determine when the question of constitutionality of a state action comes then a court can examine >> I'm so grateful I couldn't have put it in better words I have nothing more to submit as far as par page number 37 is concerned I've given the maruma judgment as the example where the court has held that articles 25 and 26 are rights of civil nature that can be exercised through the medium of section 9 and this was again reiterated in the Raman bhumi case as well because that started through a suit only and this was the basis of it you know can I just take just 10 seconds to see if I've missed out something I'm so grateful one submission on the question of constitution morality a lot has been said grow tumbkar have been cited I won't get into that in my humble submission the journey from 2018 September 28th till date is the journey of misplaced application of constitutional morality which is as opposed to applying the is position in terms of what the law says when we go down the path of applying the ought position in terms of what the law must say then we're entering the realm of policy I'm grateful deeply obliged and I'm grateful to Mr. Interesting.