The Supreme Court on Tuesday cautioned an advocate during the ongoing Sabarimala reference proceedings for making submissions that were not germane to the issues under adjudication.
The nine-judge Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice BV Nagarathna, Justice MM Sundresh, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice Aravind Kumar, Justice Augustine George Masih, Justice R Mahadevan, Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Joymalya Bagchi repeatedly directed the counsel to confine arguments to the limited questions referred for authoritative determination.
The Apex Court indicated that arguments must remain within the scope of the reference, which primarily concerned the interplay between religious freedoms and other fundamental rights.
During the hearing, the counsel advanced broad civilisational and philosophical propositions, including distinctions between “dharma” and “religion,” and made observations on historical and geopolitical developments.
He further raised arguments regarding the constitutional interpretation of Articles 25 and 26, contending that these provisions imposed regulatory limitations on the freedom of religion, including the right to profess, practice, and propagate faith.
The submissions also touched upon linguistic aspects of constitutional interpretation, with the lawyer suggesting that the English language imposed interpretative constraints on constitutional text. References were made to classical languages and religious scriptures to support these assertions.
The Bench, however, expressed disapproval of such expansive and unrelated arguments. The judges intervened at multiple stages, noting that comparative linguistic or theological discussions were extraneous to the adjudicatory exercise.
They emphasised that constitutional interpretation must be anchored in established legal principles, precedent, and the specific questions framed in the reference order.
At one stage, the Bench curtailed the submissions, observing that the line of argument was deviating from the core constitutional issues. The counsel was asked to clearly articulate his legal propositions relevant to the case.
The Advocate defended the impugned practice at the Sabarimala temple, arguing that the restriction on entry of women within a specified age group constituted a reasonable religious classification and formed an essential religious practice warranting constitutional protection.
The Bench, however, reiterated the need for disciplined advocacy and adherence to the contours of the reference. The hearing forms part of the continued proceedings before the Constitution Bench examining complex questions relating to essential religious practices, denominational rights, and the extent of judicial review in matters of faith.
The post Supreme Court pulls up lawyer for irrelevant submissions in Sabarimala Reference case appeared first on India Legal.