Supreme Court 9‑Judge Bench ने Sabarimala समीक्षा को सुना – सात संवैधानिक प्रश्न

7 April 2026 4:04 PM IST J Nagarathna: in Devaruand, there can be a possibility of article 26(b) over article 25(2)(b) SG: yes yes J Nagarathna: but you didnt say that arguments to continue tomorrow.7 April 2026 4:04 PM IST J Bagchi: what you are articulating was not raised in Devaruand SG: now I will come to dargah committee-it takes a departure and says essential religious practice is the test which in my respectful submission is a wrong assertion by judicial interpretating, not coming from text of article 25 and 26 and shirur mutt.7 April 2026 4:03 PM IST SG: my worry is this it in isolation then something which is horribly wrong or shakes the conscience of the legislature-then making article 26 absolute would thwart reformative actions also7 April 2026 3:47 PM IST J Bagchi: enlightened us on this, it holds article 26(b) subject to other provisions of this part but sub-clause 2 does not have this subordinate clause but sub-clause 2 is only an enabling provision. we know the idea of gurudnorm, fundamental right provision had higher prerogative than statutory enactment. if you see clause 2 from that perspective, non-obstante is 'nothing in this article' which is article 25 and not 26. whether a law made in enabling scope of clause 2(b) could not be tested envail on Article 26?7 April 2026 3:45 PM IST J Sundresh: in a ligher vein, the bench could have probably decided what is public character, it would have really resolved...7 April 2026 3:45 PM IST SG: it is for mylords to decide if they did so because of case specific or because of proposition of law. according to me, its a proposition of law.7 April 2026 3:45 PM IST SG: While, in the former case, Art. 25(2)(b) will be put wholly out of operation, in the latter, effect can be given to both that provision and Art. 26(b). We must accordingly hold that Art. 26(b) must be read subject to Art. 25(2)(b).7 April 2026 3:45 PM IST SG: On the other hand, if the contention of the respondents is accepted, then full effect can be given to Art. 26(b) in all matters of religion, subject only to this that as regards one aspect of them, entry into a temple for worship, the rights declared under Art. 25(2)(b) will prevail7 April 2026 3:44 PM IST SG: Applying this rule, if the contention of the appellants is to be accepted, then Art. 25(2)(b) will become wholly nugatory in its application to denominational temples, though, as stated above, the language of that Article includes them.7 April 2026 3:44 PM IST SG: The question is how the apparent conflict between them is to be resolved. The rule of construction is well settled that when there are in an enactment two provisions which cannot be reconciled with each other, they should be so interpreted that, if possible, effect could be given to both. This is what is known as the rule of harmonious construction