Sabarimala –

Court!=Clergy
In the Sabarimala case, Chandrachud held that any kind of disability will be covered by Art. 17,
however, Art. 17 concerns itself with caste discrimination and not “any” disability.
It was interpreted that “morality” under Art. 25 is Constitutional morality, this could possibility
dilute the freedom of religion to a great extent. Art. 26 recognizes different denominations, if an
attempt is made to make the various sects homogenous, denominations and diversity shall die
within religions. This is reminiscent of the British judges as they were the ones who considered
that there was only one type of Hindus, thus, one uniform law was imposed on all Hindus.
Similar treatment was given to Muslims. The Court in the Sabarimala case has not be able to
appreciate the practices of that particular sect.
Religious beliefs are not to be adjudicated by the Court.
In the Ayodhaya case, holding that any Mosque is not of importance to Muslims is furthering the
cause of the hardcore Hindutva ideology.
Punjab’s amendment to the IPC via. the blasphemy law does not include the Vedas and the
Ramayana as book which cannot be torn by people (other books like the Gita, if torn, will make
the person doing such an act to be sent to prison for life imprisonment)
The pleas raised in the review petition of Sabarimala were similar to the pleas raised in the triple
talaq matter.

How is adultery a personal matter, and how is marriage not a personal matter (triple talaq)?
Distinction b/w what is public and what is private is the bone of contention.

Religion says that what distinguishes men from other creatures is reason. Since we have reason,
we have a choice. The idea of hell and heaven is only applicable to humans and the rules were
lain down by the religions themselves. Law, thus, prescribes human behavior.
Art. 25 also talks of freedom of conscience which necessarily flows from conscience. Religions
further individualism as one is liable for one’s own wrong. Attainment of justice is the idea of
religion, and this attainment of justice is a religious concept.
The idea of jihad means fighting injustice. Religion gives law and the legal system requires a
moral backing. Even the concept perjury flows out of religion.
Ability of trust other was the root of contracts – religions tell people not to break promises.
The idea of free consent also comes from religion.
Freedom of religion for Christians initially recognized propagation of religion.
Freedom of religion for Sikhs was to carry Kripaan.
Is there a right to follow personal law an integral part of Art. 25?
If personal law, as per Sabarimala which questions Naruappa Malli, is law, Art. 25 would be
redundant.
Indu Malhotra questioned the maintainability of the PIL as the challengers of the temple entry
were not themselves followers of Lord Ayappa.
Also, the freedom of religion was not extended to the deity as Lord Ayappa is a brahmachari.
Revenant case
Ismial Farrukhi case

SC has defined religion as an inward association of a person with some superhuman entity.
VC sir recommends the Assertion Test.
//The Judges are not trained in theology and cannot appreciate religious practices.
//Also there may be both essential and recommendatory things in a religion, both these, in
totality, make the religion. The Court cannot take up one practice and call that it’s the only
essential practice and the other can be done away with.
In the Shirur Math case, the SC said that an essential practice of the religion can be identified by
looking at the text of the religion. Example, in Verse 241 of the Quran, “mata” was understood
to be maintenance, however, it means lumpsum payment, both of them being entirely different
things. Since, marriage is a contract, and when the contract is broken, there lies no obligation to
continue payments as the person becomes a stranger after divorce.
Gandhi v. State of Bombay – “every person has a fundamental right to entertain such beliefs as
may be approved by his judgment of conscience.” The SC has said “no outside authority has any
right to say that these are not an essential part of the religion.”
In today’s world, where the SC has been the harbinger of individual freedoms, the SC’s holdings
in Triple Talaq and Sabarimala are quite the contrary to the freedoms of the religion.
Each religion should be able to decide what are its essential practice considering its own
religious text.
“religion is too personal, too sacred, too Holy to be invaded by a Civil Judge.”
Gram Sabha, Bhattishirala v. UOI – a sect claimed that capturing and worshipping live cobra is
their essential practice. Court referred to a text (different than the sect’s text), said that the act
was not an essential practice.
Anand Marghese case – a matter about Tandav dance. Calcutta HC finds that Tandav was an
essential practice of the Marghese. SC held that it was not an essential practice – the sect came
into existence in 1955 and Tandav dance was introduced only in 1966 – therefore, the sect is not
the owner of the dance.
Ismial Farukhi – para 84 – there is no reason to hold that a Mosque has greater importance than
religious places of other religions. Thus, Mosque is not a necessary for Muslims, they can pray
even in the open.
Freedom of religion is also inclusive of freedom from religion. In schools, employment, et cetera
people are being touched by religions.
Example – Mosques being maintained by governments funds in Gujarat. Churches being
maintained by gov. funds in Kerala.
Also, another problem in religion is that minorities in religion (example – women in Islam) are
not given rights because the dominant group does not allow them rights.
CURRENT PROBLEM – in Kendriya Vidyalaya of M.P., students were being compelled to
chant religious prayers.
On this flipside, Angel v. Rittel (US) – the Supreme Court held that religious activity (in this
case, prayer) cannot be permitted in schools.
Freedom within religion is the most important thing to achieve, religion is a personal belief and a
person can indulge in whatever practices he or she may want to and still be a Hindu/Muslim or
whatever his/her belief is. Freedom within religion also include freedom against religion – a
person can decide not to conform with all the practices of that particular religion and still be a
part of that religion.
Church of Holy Trinity v. U.S. – the U.S. Court said that we are a religious nation.
For the Haj, the subsidy being paid to AirIndia is illegal. On the other hand, for Mansarovar
yatra, the Gov pays 1 lakh to each pilgrim.
Mira Nanda’s book reveals that there is a nexus b/w gov. and religion. Example – you can pay in
Tirupati and visit the shrine via. the VIP line.
Patanjali Shastri, CJ, said that right to freedom of expression is enough to protect religious rights.
25 is just an addition.
No democracy shall survive, if the rights of the minorities are not respected.