The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that it doesn’t want to be party to annihilation of religion and said Article 26(b) recognises and protects the diversity of the nation.A nine-judge Supreme Court bench presided by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant also said that “…Matters of religion are not a matter on which the court or legislature can pass a judgement upon. It cannot be a subject matter of debate before a secular authority because it is a matter of conscience.” The court was hearing the submissions of Senior Advocate Indira Jaising on constitutional questions arising out of petitions seeking review of the September 28, 2018, judgment striking down restrictions on entry of women into the Sabarimala temple.The bench also comprises Justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi.One of the key questions which the court is examining is the interplay between Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.Article 25 (1) guarantees every person freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise and propagate religion subject to public order, morality and health. Article 25 clause (2) sub-clause (a) empowers the state to make laws for regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity, which may be associated with religious practice, while clause (b) allows the state to make laws for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of the faith. Article 26(b) gives religious denominations, and any section thereof the right to manage their own affairs in matters of religion.While those opposing the 2018 verdict have urged the court that it should not pursue the essential religious practises test, Jaising representing two women who entered the hill shrine pursuant to the SC decision, however, contended that the test should not be discarded altogether as courts may, in a given case, have to examine whether discontinuing a practice would affect the core of the religion.Justice Sundaresh said, “The courts will have to be circumspect when dealing with essentiality.” Justice Amanullah said courts may have to even lift the veil to ascertain whether the petitioner before it is a genuine believer.Story continues below this adJaising said “I am claiming a right under Article 25(1) to enter a public place of worship … It’s not important to me whether I am a believer or not, with ‘shradha’, with respect, to introspect.”Justice Amanullah wondered if giving primacy to the beliefs of oneself and ignoring the sentiments of others can really be called introspection.Justice Sundaresh said, “If we agree with your contentions, it will lead to dangerous consequences. Suppose there is a belief, but someone visiting says I don’t want this practice, someone else says he doesn’t want some other practice … It will be disastrous to the concept of religion itself, and it will be militating against the very right given under Article 25(1).”Justice Nagarathna added: “It would be annihilation of religion which we don’t want to be a part of. What are matters of religion be given a broad meaning. We understand Article 25(2) which is the enabling power of the state. But otherwise, matters of religion are not a matter on which the court or legislature can pass a judgement upon. It cannot be a subject matter of debate before a secular authority because it is a matter of conscience.”Story continues below this adThe judge said: “If social reform is required, the state legislature or Parliament will step in. That much power is enabled. Under the constitution, the constitution makers are very conscious of this fact that a matter of religion cannot be such that a social reform is also not permitted or entry is not permitted to depressed sections or classes of Hindus.”As the discussions veered around the absence of a Uniform Civil Code for the entire country, Justice Nagarathna said “the society if it is ready for it, it will be done. Now it is coming state-wise. (When) the Parliament finds it can be done throughout the country, then that time will come”.Jaising also argued that the reason for the restriction on her client had to do with gender as well as caste. However, the bench pointed out that the restriction did not have anything to do with caste.During the hearing, Justice Nagarathna also said, “We are strong because we are diverse, and diversity is our strength, and to bring about a recognition of the diversity in denominations, Article 26 (b) protects it. By giving such protection, there is also a unity developed in the country.”