“Wake Up Hindu, Become Muslim by Lunch?” – Sanjay Hegde Sparks Debate in Court

Added: 2026-05-23

[00:00:00]I appear on behalf of the rationalists.

[00:00:05]The rationalist in this case my lord uh Dr. Hammed Dulkar and doc miss narendra miss jadav they members of a society called the maharashtra and shrada nirmulan summit.

[00:00:24]Your lordships may remember that Hamehmed Dhabulkar's father Dr. Narendra Dabulkar was assassinated in 2013.

[00:00:37]It was followed by the murders of comrade Pansare, Professor Kalborgi and Gori Lankesh.

[00:00:48]It is my it is our respectful submission that there are several accretions to religion or which claim a religious descent which have been exploited and which should in no way receive the protective cover of religion.

[00:01:15]My lords, this is one part of it.

[00:01:20]Lord, on the other part of it, speaking for myself, my lords, I stand in the proud tradition of somebody from Uripi who is from where both Shir Mat and Wenatra Devru came. Justice Arvin Kumar has a slight smile on that malut. It's from that district. I also come from the tradition of Mr. BN Rao and Bishaw Rao who helped frame the constitution.

[00:01:54]My lord's speaking for a rationalist or a rationalist perspective.

[00:02:00]What is it? Other words, we rationalists are not necessarily it is.

[00:02:07]We are people who say that look everything including religion has to go through the filter of reason.

[00:02:25]The rationalist principle is also relevant with regard to the actual constitutional history and the history of these two provisions. It is my respectful submission my lords that one should not take just these two provisions alone.

[00:02:55]Please bear in mind the history with and the historical moment in which this constitution was forged.

[00:03:07]My lords, we are a deeply religious ritualistic country.

[00:03:15]We are a country that suffered a partition because we could not accommodate certain religious identities.

[00:03:28]We are also a country whose constitution was written not only in the backdrop of a struggle against imperialism but also a social struggle among ourselves.

[00:03:46]Today my lords we are on the 101st anniversary almost of where the story begins in Kerala. not Shabriala.

[00:03:58]In 1925, there was the Wikcom temple, Satya.

[00:04:05]The Wong temple is south of uh Kochin.

[00:04:13]Not only could people not enter the temple but even the roads around the temple were not accessible by not only the depressed classes but also certain other casts.

[00:04:32]The satyagra against that was settled by the Mahatma.

[00:04:41]But from the satyagraha came among the people who participated in the satyagraha was Priar.

[00:04:51]And Priar then goes on later to say that there is no God.

[00:04:57]In that satiyagra also was Naran Guru who was quite old at that point of time and he said that the compromise which Gandhi G came out with was not acceptable to him because the compromise was that new roads would be built around the temple.

[00:05:19]Everybody could access those roads and the queen regent of that day said no this one road on the east that will still remain closed. It took about 11 years thereafter till 1936 when a new regenta when a new Maharaja came in and the Maharaja then said on the advice of his dwan sir CP Ramaswami Ayar Mr. Aryama Sundaram's grandfather said that uh everybody could enter and why and once that temple entry proclamation from the Maharaja came the Maharaja of the neighboring state excommunicated almost everybody who who was from Kochin while this satiagra went on after this satiagra shortly thereafter came the Mahar satiagra which Dr. Ambedkar launched Dr. Ambedkar wanted to drink water from a public tank that was not allowed and at that point of time once the tank sat happened there were criminal cases which took nearly a decade thereafter till 1937 to solve.

[00:06:37]While the case was pending Dr. Ambedkar's disciples launched yet another temple of satyagra that was the nasi kalaram temple satiagra the nasi satyagra and the dandi march >> I'm sorry you just for a moment >> please malut >> probably before Mahatma Gandhi g professed nonviolent agitation it was in kalaram temple satyagra babas gave a call to all his disciples not to follow the path of any violence.

[00:07:15]>> Absolutely.

[00:07:17]>> The first nonviolent agitation.

[00:07:19]>> Absolutely.

[00:07:20]>> I mean due credit to Gandhi G but probably it was the first nonviolent agitation on a call given by Dr. Bos.

[00:07:30]>> I'm grateful my lords and Dr. Ammedkar's disciples who launched that satiyagra. Prominent among them were the women.

[00:07:43]It was the women of Nasik, the depressed classes women of Nasi who who also had those uh uh particular jatas or whatever to claim entry. My lord, it is in this context of temple entry and social reform that between 46 and 49 when a constitution was being framed, please look at the historical backdrop.

[00:08:21]The historical backdrop was this that the world had seen what wrong religion could do.

[00:08:32]We had partition violence. We had the Jewish holocaust.

[00:08:39]We had the murder of the Mahatma.

[00:08:43]So when we drew up our constitution, we sort of said that look, these are parts where extremism does not work.

[00:08:57]We drew up a constitution, Malords, which a professor Hannah learner said in a book called Constitutions for deeply divided societies. Malards making constitutions in deeply divided societies.

[00:09:15]She said that what was done was a process of constitutional incrementalism.

[00:09:23]You do not look for a huge revelation coming down from the high.

[00:09:31]What you do is you have you represent you embrace competing visions of the state thus representing the identity of the people as it really was at the time of drafting. In other words, a divided identity.

[00:09:52]The incrementalist constitutional toolbox included strategies as avoiding clear-cut decisions, using ambiguous legal language, and inserting internally contradictory provisions into the constitution.

[00:10:10]For example, cows slaughter.

[00:10:13]There were people in the constituent assembly who said, "Give us a clear line. Is cow slaughter to be back? Are we to eat cows or not? are we to slaughter them or not? There were others who said no, we can eat anything. So therefore, it was put in there in the directive principles as in Dr. Ambedkar's uh quest for scientific development of milkch cattle etc etc and there it it was it was put in there. So this incremental approach came even in 25 and 26.

[00:10:56]What is it that these two articles have done? These two articles my lords in my respectful submission if your lordship gets back to the text of the article firstly says that everybody is equally entitled.

[00:11:15]So everybody possesses the freedom of conscience. That's the first thing. Whatever your conscience says and the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion.

[00:11:35]Now please note there is a significant omission here.

[00:11:40]>> The significant omission is of a pronoun.

[00:11:45]It doesn't say their religion.

[00:11:48]It doesn't say the religion of their birth.

[00:11:52]It doesn't say the religion of their choice. It says religion.

[00:11:59]You can theoretically wake up a Hindu, be a Muslim at lunch and be a Christian at night.

[00:12:10]Whatever is your conscience, whatever is your religion, you are free to do that.

[00:12:18]However, it is subject to public order, morality, health, etc., etc. Now my lords, it then this is your individual right.

[00:12:34]What happens if you bunch together as a collective people who sit together who worship in the same way they can form a denomination there will be people who like Dr. Davans are arry samais.

[00:13:03]That was a rationalist principle. When mul shankar of Gujarat saw rats eating the prasad on the shiveling he said why should we worship idols?

[00:13:18]We shall go back to the book and we shall have only vic rights.

[00:13:24]And that's how one form or one denomination be came to be formed.

[00:13:32]But denominational rights maluts are only a collective.

[00:13:41]A denomination does not necessarily have a juristic entity.

[00:13:49]It is not as if any greater right gets conferred except what everybody among their members has.

[00:13:57]And that is why my lords when they spoke in 25 that it would be subject to the other uh the other articles of of of the of the fundamental rights and to the other provisions of this part.

[00:14:18]Then you take that you collect you congregate. What do what else do you get? You get to establish and maintain institutions for religious purposes, to own and acquire removable property, to administer such property in accordance with law, and to manage its own affairs in matters of religion. Now, this denominational right, who do you claim it against?

[00:14:49]It is not only that you claim it against the rest of the world but you also claim it against orthodoxy of your own religion.

[00:15:04]It is if I could illustrate my lords if your religious doctrine with respect my lords to uh I don't intend to sort of uh denigrate any in this one but supposing your religious says that there is only one god and one prophet but there is a denomination which says yes there is god There is that there is the prophet but there is a subsequent prophet.

[00:15:42]Then with regard to that with regard to the orthodoxy of your religion you can manage your own affairs.

[00:15:53]That is possibly one possible interpretation. My lords, my lords, uh I have uh drawn some uh supplementary submissions. My lords, may I just hand them over?

[00:16:09]Just hand over. Uh the the thickness is only the anexures and I'll quickly run through them. So please don't forget no Mr. Please >> if we understood you correctly 251 you you are trying to interpret it that you have the right to profess means in the morning you can be you say that I'm a Christian in the afternoon you can be say I'm a Muslim and then in the evening you can say >> please >> that is understanding >> yes my lord >> and then read it once again with me >> please my lord >> subject to public order morality and health and to the other provisions of this part >> please my lords >> all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience. That is one part.

[00:16:58]>> Freedom of conscience is very at the uppermost and the right freely to profess practice and propagate. If we give that interpretation which you are trying to canvas then it mean that I I am a Muslim in the morning. I have my that is my I profess that I I'm a Muslim. But practice I will go I will go to a temple. I would say I will practice my Muslim uh belief in that if you read it because this has to be profess practice and propagate has to be a common religion otherwise it will lead to absurdity.

[00:17:35]If you say I can profess I will profess that no I'm a Muslim but I will go to a temple and I will practice the tenets of a Muslim and propagate that Islam there then it is absurdity you can't read that that it is two separate three separate it has to be read in a chain it has to be profess practice and propagate that has to be one composite you cannot move around >> practice profess and propagate religion Not necessarily your religion >> but right but if you give that any religion >> no no but if you get that interpretation that you can propagate or practice then yes I will I will profess I am a Muslim but I will go and practice I because I'm a Muslim I profess I'll go and practice my type of religion my type of worship in a temple if that interpretation then it's absurdity please you please there very very there There you can profess, practice and propagate your religion in its religion in its appropriate place of worship.

[00:18:47]>> This has to be read in harmony.

[00:18:49]>> Please my lord, let's let's keep the place of worship out.

[00:18:56]>> Let's keep the place of worship out.

[00:18:57]Let's take the ju just to illustrate >> with this practice >> just to illustrate let's keep the place of worship entirely out in this courtroom in the morning I can proclaim that I'm a Muslim in the afternoon I can say that Christ is my savior and in the evening I can say that the Bhagat Gita is the only thing they in a in a >> nobody is disputing that you do whatever you want conscience conscience >> so so long as Yes.

[00:19:28]>> Yes. My my my lord was trying to trying to tie me down to a particular geography. So don't don't go into the Muslim that behaving as if you are Christian. You are going going to go into the temple thinking you are you are >> yes when you go when you go when you go anywhere they saying >> please my lord when when you go anywhere >> as you don't as nobody stops your belief practic right to practice something don't get into others that's all my eclectic >> we can be eclectic and please don't rationalist view would be maintain a respectful distance when you go to any place of worship.

[00:20:14]You go by the by the by the tenor of that place. I was in a cathedral in in Russia. I it was cold. I had a cap on.

[00:20:23]Now having a cap on in a religious place is correct in India or covering your head is correct in India. But in Russia, no.

[00:20:34]>> As a sign of respect, you have to take off your hat. So when you approach a religious place my lords that is rationality.

[00:20:43]>> Yeah.

[00:20:44]>> But please my lords >> uh may may I just uh I I have handed over uh these submissions and my lords I have put out the details of the interveners.

[00:20:58]>> Yes. You have already explained to us that >> please my lords to just the first paragraph the second paragraph in the preliminary these submissions page one my lords these submissions are made with three convictions first the constitution is supreme second its text is the court's only safeguide. Third, its commands are not displaced by custom, however ancient or by claim, however earnest. The authority of this court, >> I'm sorry, Malud Z, the first page, >> the authority of this court rests on the constitution. The authority of the constitution rests on its text. These submissions return again and again to the text.

[00:21:56]melods I have at uh thereafter I have defined rationalist melods and now if I come to page three >> yes >> constitutional recognition of rationalism and rationalists the constitution recognizes the rationalist standpoint in five distinct places the preamble secures to all citizens liberty of thought expression belief faith and worship The order of these words is not accidental.

[00:22:29]Thought comes first.

[00:22:32]Article 251 guarantees freedom of conscience. Conscience is a faculty of the individual. The article protects the conscience that says no to believe equally with the conscience that says yes. The right to disbelieve is contained in the right to believe.

[00:22:51]Article 28 forbids religious institution in wholly state funded schools and forbids compelling any pupil in a state recognized institution to take part in religious instruction or worship.

[00:23:07]Article 28 malo can be read as a charter for the rationalist child. Article 51 ah makes it the duty of every citizen to develop the scientific temper humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform.

[00:23:23]This duty is unique to our constitution.

[00:23:26]No other constitution in the world names scientific temper as a civic duty.

[00:23:33]Article 252B permits the state to throw open Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus. The provision itself is a rationalist provision. It places reform inside the constitutional scheme then outside it.

[00:23:56]the then my lords the uh I I would not uh you need to read the other the other bits my lords and then if your lordship comes to page four articles 25 and 26 of the constitution form an integrated scheme of religious freedom and must be read together it has the following features the constitution protect I'm uh my lady justice Nagaratna has got it minutes uh and must be read together. It has the following features. The constitution protects belief absolutely. It cannot prescribe what a person may think or in whom he may have faith. The constitution protects practice conditionally.

[00:24:42]Practice is subject to public order, morality and health. Individual practice is also subject to the other provisions of its part. That's 251. The constitution protects religious autonomy in matters that are intrinsically religious, doctrine, right, ceremony, but not in matters that are secular though associated with religion.

[00:25:08]The constitution arms the state with reform power especially over Hindu religious institutions of a public character. Then the constitution does not establish a religion.

[00:25:20]Article 13 supplies the bridge between religion and constitutional discipline.

[00:25:26]It declares void any law enforce including custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law to the extent of inconsistency with with part three. The religion that the constitution protects is therefore the religion that has passed through the filter of part three. A custom that fails the filter does not become protected by being old. That my lords is the heart of the submission.

[00:25:59]Custom as a source of law, custom as enforced by law. Ultimately, what did your lordships do in the five judges?

[00:26:10]There was a rule which was actually drawn up that was man-made law.

[00:26:17]Your lordship said that in this constitutional scheme that man-made law cannot survive. And I'm making a distinction.

[00:26:27]There may be customs. There may be some praise.

[00:26:32]There will be acts of individual discipline like like that hat example that I that I gave you Lord Sheps.

[00:26:40]People and most people will normally follow that.

[00:26:47]It is where there is an assertion with the force of law which runs contrary to the constitutional scheme. It is then that the courts step in saying no you don't have that power. You cannot by law say by man-made law say that women will have to stay out of this institution for a period of uh 40 years. If instead there had been a discipline which said that on those specific days please don't come.

[00:27:37]It's not a total exclusion.

[00:27:42]An exclusion which is so whole that it denies the right of the worshipper will fall a foul of the constitution.

[00:27:56]That is exactly what watraana devu was.

[00:27:59]Wenatraanade devu inly maluts refers to the deity himself.

[00:28:06]It was Lord Welkana who came before your lordships and the traditions of the temple were that one particular sect of people had been called in antiquity by the raja of that place to come and settle in that place and build a temple.

[00:28:30]with the passage of time uh everybody worshiped in the temple.

[00:28:38]The question is then we have this denomination which established the temple.

[00:28:45]We have the right to manage our own affairs is our right to be totally negatory totally negated that there are times when we exclusively worship. So that's why this court said let's harmonize where your right does not totally eat away the other right of entry. You are entitled to it.

[00:29:16]But let us assume that the gods areas Brahmans of Muli said that notwithstanding the fact that it is now a temp a public temple.

[00:29:31]It is only us who can worship within the temple courtyard.

[00:29:38]Others stay out stay at a respectful distance. Then would it be would it fall a foul of the constitution? It's my respectful submission that it is then that temple entry has to be given full play.

[00:29:56]I thought about this matter my lords and it is my respectful submission that ultimately in matters of right ritual agamas or whatever within the sanctum sanctorum it may have fully but beyond that it cannot be the prince Principle again comes from my hometown of Udipi.

[00:30:32]In Uripi, my lords, the temple was forbidden to a lower cast worshipper.

[00:30:41]Tanakadasa of Uripi came in and was not allowed in. Your lordship knows that most Hindu temples the idol looks eastward.

[00:30:52]When kanakadasa was not allowed in, he stayed outside, continued to write budgeons, continued to write holy songs till the idol itself turned around, broke open the back gate and gave him dash.

[00:31:12]The moral I derive from that is that God does not discriminate. Man does.

[00:31:21]And the same legend goes to the east.

[00:31:25]Your lordship will remember in the jaganath temple baktas was not was denied entry to see the lord.

[00:31:35]Baktasalbe stood outside.

[00:31:38]When the Lord came out for the ratatra, the rat did not move until bakalbe was given danal.

[00:31:49]In my lord's uh example of the varies to the pandarpur temple, people of all kinds go during the harvest season. But some people were only proh were prohibited from entry. They could go to the statue of Chamela to the grave of Chamella. Chamella was my lord somebody who had been denied entry and his very bones when he died kept saying vitala.

[00:32:24]Now if you're referring to Chukamea the verse Chukamea said because he was born in a community and the word goes that >> and this was because the entry was prohibited and this was an anguish expressed by please and to come back to the modern age melod when uh Mrs. Ambitkar the first was very ill she wanted to go to pandur Dr. said no I'll build you a new pandur just as v will tell you that at that stage when she was unwell they she came to his family she he stayed with his family mal's discrimination has not gone away today we have the bimaga which is the constitution of India it is in that we place our hopes and my lords If if I can come back >> to comparing collect uh at page six comparing collective protections and the sum of individual rights >> please common factor in all these instances which you quoted >> please that they were all great devotees of the lord >> please >> the lord appeared or pleased Because of the devotion.

[00:34:08]>> Please my lords, devotion >> that is a quality of a believer.

[00:34:14]>> My lords, there is belief.

[00:34:18]But the Lord does not turn away any believer or anybody even who has even half a belief.

[00:34:25]As long as you respectfully come, then it is not man's province >> to push away anybody who comes respectfully in belief or without belief also. belief can come later even >> they understood that >> please my lord I I I don't want to pitch it too high and I I'm uh if I can come back to page six of my written submission paragraph 17 a collective is composed of individuals the collective enjoys derivatively the rights its members enjoy to this it adds by article 36 I'm sorry mal the right to manage management is not a freestanding fundamental right of belief it is an instrumental right the right to manage is not a right to mismanage as held in Nelson. Even otherwise, rights under 25 and 26 of the constitution are not absolute and unfettered.

[00:35:49]The right to manage, it goes without saying, does not carry with it a right to mismanage.

[00:35:55]The proposition that article 26 produces some new species of right larger than the rights of the members would be a static one. It would mean that a community could possess quake community, a right to do things which no individual within it could. The constitution gives no warrant for so strange a proposition.

[00:36:16]It is submitted that the right of management is only the right to regulate individuals in a matter consistent with public order, health, and morality. Any reading that produces the result that a community's right to discriminate is greater than the state's power to forbid discrimination is an absurdity.

[00:36:39]Then mess the doctrine of harmonious cons construction melods that that I've already addressed with regard to the hierarchy of rights versus individual rights versus collective rights mess again it is my respectful submission and I adopt what Mr. Gupta and what Mr. Raju Ram Chan has have earlier said that it is the individual who's at the heart of the matter. The dignity of the individual which has been guaranteed in our preamble that has to be protected my lords. Then our untouchability abolished in any form the text is is set out my lords. And if your lordship turns to paragraph 27 on November 29th November 1948 article 17 came up in the constituent assembly and Mr. Naziruin Ahmed moved an amendment to read no one shall on account of his religion or cast be treated or regarded as an untouchable and it observance in any form may be made punishable by law. Mr. Naziruin Ahmed and Profess Katy Sha pressed the assembly to confine the prop provision to cast in religion. Dr. Ambedkar declined to accept that amendment. The assembly negative. Article 17 was adopted in its present unqualified form.

[00:38:03]The assembly therefore considered and rejected the very narrowing that the petitioners now press upon this court.

[00:38:10]My lords, I've put that also the irrelevant ones. My lord, that the verses your your lordships may skip over.

[00:38:19]Then the analysis for potentiality of of at page 10. Analysis of potential conflicts between articles 25 and 26. There is a potential for a clash between articles 25 and 26. is also that >> that has that has been uh over my lords and uh if I may turn to parag 36 constitutional protection for religious belief from a rationalist perspective.

[00:38:54]The rationalist protects religion fully within its constitutional sphere. It does not seek to abolish religion. It does not ask this court to declare any religion false. He does not ask this court to declare any belief untrue. The rationalist asks the court to enforce four limits all of which are written in the constitution. The limits of public order, morality and health, the limit of the other provisions of this part, the limit imposed by article 17 untouchability, the limits imposed by 14 and 15 equality and non-discrimination.

[00:39:32]These limits are not rationalist limits imposed on religion from outside. These are constitutional limits accepted by the constituent assembly. The rationalist within these limits leaves religion untouched.

[00:39:46]Me then as far as conscience is concerned and then my the heart of the submission with regard to what the society concerned minds the Maharashtra Anduni does at page 13 distinguishing religious practice from unprotected superstition.

[00:40:09]The task of distinguishing religious practice from unprotected situation uh superstition necessitates a nuanced approach. The petitioners rely on a familiar critique of the abiter of Gajendra Gurka. This is the this is Mr. Sai's critique which justice Inumalotra relied heavily on. The critic runs that when the learner judge said that protection under article 26 extends only to practices that are essential and integral to a religion and that mere superstitious accretions or purely secular activities can clothe in religious forms may be carefully scrutinized. He in effect substituted the view of the court for the view of the denomination on a matter intrinsic to religion. The further charge is that one man's superstition is another man's faith and that judges are not theologians.

[00:41:02]With respect, this critique is unsound.

[00:41:06]Gajendrakar did not contradict Mukharji in the Shir Mat case. He clarified him.

[00:41:13]Mukharji had said that what is essential to a religion must be ascertained with reference to the doctrines of that religion itself which presupposes that essentiality can be tested.

[00:41:26]Gajendrakar carried that proposition to its natural conclusion where the claim is to a practice that is plainly extraneous to the doctrines or is a recent accretion or that is in substance a secular activity wearing a religious dress. The court is not bound to accept the denomination's selfcertification.

[00:41:51]This justice gajendra gadkar's uh passage in um the ajmar da is a clarification not a contradiction in any event the present case does not require this court to enter the territory of essentiality. The intervenors do not ask the court to label tabrimal superstition and strike it down on that earth. They ask the court to apply the constitution. The constitution does not require the court to label any belief. It requires the court to apply articles 14, 15, 17, 25, and 26. It has further submitted that at least three legislators legislations have made a sound distinction between practices that will be protected and practices w that will not be protected even if based on some beliefs that may arise from the practice of religion.

[00:42:48]Here my lords I'd like to draw your attention to the actual document my lords the the Karnataka act is at page 53 and it is relevant at 58 if your lordship kindly allows me to place that uh your lordships may I just place the object and reasons An act to bring to protect the common people in society against evil and sinister practices and to combat and eradicate other inhuman evil sinister practices propagated and performed in the name of the so-called supernatural or magical power or evil spirit commonly known as black magic by conmen with sinister motive of exploiting etc etc my lords a government has actually made this now if your lordship uh turns to say uh 57 at section 15 for the removal of doubt. It is hereby declared that nothing in this act shall apply in respect to the following namely the form of worship known as praina yatra paricramma performed at religious spiritual places.

[00:44:11]>> Where are you reading?

[00:44:12]>> Uh page 57.

[00:44:14]>> Yes.

[00:44:15]>> Savings.

[00:44:20]Bajana teaching of ancient and traditional learnings to state about the miracles of deceased saints propagation publicity circulation of the same propagation distribution of literature about miracles etc etc messes these are all passages which the legislature consciously makes a decision this is part of religion we will not go there now see what they go into see the schedule and in the schedule uh there are various practices which are set out. But if your lordship can uh can permit me to place 10 at page 58.

[00:45:04]Practicing of evil practices against women by forcing isolation, prohibiting re-entry into the village, of facilitating segregation of menstruating of postpartum women and subjecting women to inhuman and human humiliating practices such as parading them naked in the name of worship or otherwise such as Bethles. Then Malud's 12 facilitating any person or persons to roll over urlu se on the leaves of leftover food by other persons in any public and or religious places or similar practices that violate human dignity. My lords, there are certain temples where after people uh finish the ritual meal, there are some devotees who roll on those leaves a form of uh abasement or surrender to anything that is there in religion that the a state government has prohibited me and these are the kind of things where there are lines. It's not as if lines cannot be drawn. Lines have been drawn and any line drawn by the state should not be totally exclusionary in nature. There has to be a reason. I and I just want to show that this is not only one government that did it. The government of Gujarat.

[00:46:36]>> See, there is no force. Nobody is forced to do >> or what you call that there is a particular nobody is forcing anybody a person who wants to consciously do it is attempting to do it >> in a in a religious public place >> in a religious public place. The law can, it is my respectful submission that in a religious public place as a matter of social reform, the law can get in because what happens in a religious public place then transmutes to society.

[00:47:24]>> Maluds, it's like this. It it is like >> forcing every person who visits the temple to perform madesh nana definitely the state can step in because it is a matter of their conscience. Please my lord those who want to do it they are doing it but if you even if you want to do it do not do it in a public place >> then it is bad >> even if you want to do it you will not do it in a public temple that the state can certainly say my lord that's my suggestion for let me give you a lordship another example today there is a temple in Uttakand which says that unless you have panchagavia you will not enter the temple.

[00:48:11]That's a sump a new sump.

[00:48:15]It will turn away many of us who may want to visit it. We may visit the tarakawi but we will not visit the the gangotri can if a practice wearing religious clothes is so irrational the only issue is that >> please >> we are right now not examining >> today you're not examining >> constitutional sorry a piece of legislation reflecting the will and wish of the people to their elected representative.

[00:48:54]We are as of now there is no such provision before us.

[00:48:59]>> In fact, I'm very grateful to your lordship for that question and that is precisely why >> the state under 252 >> that's a different issue that that can be subject matter of examination and it's a case of social reform or putting into 25 >> that can be always examined. I I'm very grateful for that intervention and my lords that gives me an opportunity to request your lordship once again that please do not see this only through the lens of shabri mala please make it about inry 2526 >> we are requesting all of you that please ignore don't be under the heavy burden of shabri mala huh they and if your changes the changes the title it would also help later for for legal researchers legal this one you don't say kto so and so 1 2 3 in read 2526 meal is the argument and their meal I could end on a note of a magistrate the great akbaradi who once said I'm grateful thank you thank you