The Court today also witnessed a discussion about denominations and whether all of them can be considered to be of religious nature.
"Let us see Aurobindo. Is that philosophy a religious denomination? It can be a denomination but not religious," Justice Nagarathna said.
However, Mehta said,
"This may be your ladyship's honest and informed view but what is relevant is my view as a follower. Whether I believe that to be religion."
CJI Kant attempted to explain Mehta's submission.
"We get your argument. It is that because Aurobindo's followers believe that the view that they follow is a religious view, it carries all ingredients of a religion therefore they themselves carve out to be an exception or denomination therefore others cannot impose on them that no no you are not a religion. If someone says, I follow Aurobindo right from morning since I get up till I sleep, I follow his idea, his philosophy, his guidance and treat him as my supreme being, then who are you to tell me that it's not religion. This is your submission," Justice Kant said.
Justice Nagarathna said that it can be freedom of conscience but cannot come under religious denomination. Similarly, Justice Bagchi questioned an expansive definition of a denomination.
