Thread by @barandbench

#Sabarimala: V Giri concludes, Sai Deepak J begins.

#Sabarimala: Rights under Article 25 is subject to Article 26.

Deity has rights under Article 21, 25(1) and 26 (b), J Sai Deepak.

#Sabarimala: While I have rights under Article 26, I am sticking to Article 25 and this case can be disposed of under A. 25, J Sai Deepak.

#Sabarimala: Bench rises for lunch, Sai Deepak J. to continue.

#Sabarimala: If deity is a juristic person and can be taxed, he equally has rights under Article 21, 25 and 26.

His right to remain a "naishtika Brahmachari" part of right to privacy under Article 25, Sai Deepak J.

#Sabarimala: Bench re-assembles, Sai Deepak J continues his submissions.

#Sabarimala: Sai Deepak J on how Ayyappa is a juristic person and hence has rights under Articles 21 and 25(1).

#Sabarimala: This is not a case of Temple v. Women or Man v. Women but is Man v Man and Women v. Women;

Tmrw men might seek exception from taking 41-day penance, Sai Deepak J.

#Sabarimala: The denominational character of a temple as per Article 26 is independent of the right of temple to allow entry to public, Sai Deepak J.

#Sabarimala: Which is the denomination here? DY Chandrachud J.

"Ayyappa devotees", Sai DeepaK J.

#Sabarimala: So denomination can cut across religions? Chandrachud J.

Yes, in this case denomination is devotees who subscribe to the belief of that particular temple irrespetive of Muslim, Hindu or Christian, responds Sai Deepak J

#Sabarimala:
But it should be religious denomination, Nariman J.

Denomination is decided not on the background faith of the devotee but whether the devotee believes in what is essential characteristic of the temple/ deity, replies Sai Deepak.

#Sabarimala: Religious denominatiom in Hindu faith not comparable to denominations in say Christianity, Sai Deepak.

#Sabarimala: Status of denomination is not bestowed by the court, Sai Deepak.

#Sabarimala: 'Your arguments are impressive, I must admit that', CJI Dipak Misra to Sai Deepak.

#Sabarimala: Public character of an institution does not take away the identity of the institution, Sai Deepak.

#Sabarimala: Did the Constitution makers envisage Article 21 to be enjoyed by living beings or deity? CJI Dipak Misra.

#Sabarimala: Articles 25 and 26 represent a social contract between Nation State and Faith with respect to boundaries of encroachment, Sai Deepak.

#Sabarimala: Naishitka Brahmacharya is not with respect to men alone, there are instance of women also.

Sai Deepak citing case of Kamakhya temple.

#Sabarimala: Rohitnon Nariman J. says affidavit by Tantri says women cannot observe 41-day penance due to menstruation.

#Sabarimala: "Menstruation is not impure", Sai Deepak.

#Sabarimala: Rights of individuals under A.25(1) subject to Article 26 but if Article 26 does not apply, then my deity has rights under Article 21 and 25(1), Sai Deepak.

#Sabarimala: "If evidence is the question there is mountain of evidence and it is upon petitioners to disprove it since they have come to the court with this challenge", Sai Deepak.

#Sabarimala: There is no doubt that individualism should be respected but when you go to a public place of worship you have to subject to yourselves to that right, Sai Deepak.

#Sabarimala: Rohinton Nariman poses questions on how Constitutional goal is to balance rights.

"You have a right subject to other persons right, subject to Part III and subject to laws made", Nariman J.

#Sabarimala: There is a problem with our jurisprudence.

Essentialty aspect has taken charge of A.25 but it should not be so. Because if something is essential it becomes inviolable", DY Chandrachud J.

#Sabarimala: Due to this essentiality doctrine, Judges including Supreme Court judges are now assuming a theological mantle which we are not expected to do, DY Chandrachud J.

#Sabarimala: The test should be whether a practice subscribes to the Constitution irrespective of whether it is essential or not, DY Chandrachud J.

#Sabarimala: Not every exclusion is discrimination, Sai Deepak.

Essentiality test equally applies to Article 25(1) as it does to A. 25(2) and 26.

Exclusion does not mean discrimination, Sai Deepak.

#Sabarimala: Will Articles 14 and 15(1) apply, Rohinton Nariman J.

Notifications are codification of existing practice/ custom. By striking down the same we are not merely quashing the notification but also going against the custom, Sai Deepak.

#Sabarimala: I am not defending the notification because it does not reflect the spirit of Rule 3(b), I am defending Rule 3(b), Sai Deepak.

#Sabarimala: I dont know whether I am qualified to make this statement, but it calls for evidence, Sai Deepak says.

#Sabarimala: Sai Deepak concludes, Sr. Kailasanatha Pillai commences arguments for Ayyappa Seva Sangham.

#Sabarimala: This is pre-constitutional custom and it cannot be seen in isolation. It has to be viewed along with other customs associated with Sabarimala temple, Kailasanatha Pillai.

#Sabarimala: State has been frequently changing its stance, Kailasanatha Pillai.

#Sabarimala: Your Lordships have to find a way to uphold this custom so that other similar customs are not disturbed, Kailasanatha Pillai.

#Sabarimala: Kailasanatha Pillai says this matter should not be viewed from strict legal sense.

"Kelsen's theory should not be applied here. Your Lordships should find a leeway."

#Sabarimala: To fill empirical vaccum, there should be evidence. It cannot be done on the basis of few newspaper cuttings, Kailasanatha Pillai.

#Sabarimala: Rather than Kelsen's Pure Law theory, it is Indian realism that should be applied. Indian realism means Constitution cannot be interpreted without taking into account social realities.

Otherwise it will lead to social tensions in Kerala, Kailasanatha Pillai.

#Sabarimala: I dont want another Ayodhya in Kerala;

Your Lordships have to be very circumspect when exercising judicial review in matters of faith, Kailasanatha Pillai concludes his arguments.

#Sabarimala: Bench rises, hearing to resume on Tuesday.