State government counsel Mukul Rohatgi questioned the petitioners’ locus standi in raising the issue, and argued that “you can’t make castles in the air”.
The fate of the judiciary as an institution, and our fate as a democratic nation, hinges on whether we, as a people speak out, or watch passively.
However, the court also said that the constitutional scheme was prima facie tilted in favour of the lieutenant governor in the union territory of Delhi.
Ultimately, the bench decided to leave it to the government to decide whether its order needs to be diluted or further cemented.
The government should take into account the “dynamic progress” made in modern science to adopt painless methods of carrying out the death sentence, the chief justice-headed bench said.
The court, however, said the verdict rendered in the pending petition will determine the outcome of the present plea as well.
During the hearings, one judge had observed that the ‘right to privacy’ is not absolute and it can’t stop the legislature from imposing reasonable restrictions.
A bench headed by Chief Justice J. S. Khehar said that such religious issues can be solved through negotiations and offered to mediate to arrive at an amicable settlement.
The apex court initiated this as an interim measure to make sure that the BCCI implements Justice Lodha panel recommendations.
The outgoing chief justice sided with the majority view because he believed it advances the constitution’s commitment to secularism, which is now recognised as one of its basic features.
The landmark judgment came while the court revisited a judgment from 1995 that called Hinduism a “way of life”.
The 1995 judgement on Hindutva will not be reconsidered as the court will restrict itself to deciding whether or not appealing to the religious sentiments of voters amounts to a corrupt practice.
A seven judge bench headed by chief justice, T.S. Thakur, will consider if seeking votes in the name of religion will amount to a corrupt practice.
Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi pleaded for more time and asked that the Supreme Court not issue any notice at the moment.
Melting down the traditional gold headgear without assessing its antique and commercial value is against the letter and spirit of the constitutional protection to antiquities, the petitioners have argued.