On the third day of hearings in the Sabarimala reference before the 9 Judge Bench of Supreme Court, Additional Solicitor General Vikramjit Banerjee submitted that the term “morality” in Articles 25 and 26 must be understood as “sadachar” (good conduct, as per brihat hindi kosh), as reflected in the authoritative Hindi version of the Constitution.
Referring to Article 394A, he argued that the Hindi text is not merely a translation but an “authoritative” version, and therefore relevant for constitutional interpretation. He submitted that in both Articles 25 and 26, the word used in Hindi is “sadachar”, which denotes “approved customs” or “accha acharan”, and reflects conduct accepted over time.
On this basis, Mr Banerjee contended that there is “no scope” to import the concept of constitutional morality into these provisions, emphasising that while constitutional morality may guide governance and constitutional functioning, it operates in a “different sphere” and cannot be used to interpret or limit religious freedoms under Articles 25 and 26.
He further submitted that “sadachar” refers to existing and accepted norms within a religious framework, unlike constitutional morality which may represent aspirational values and respect to constitutional framework.