Senior Advocate Sridhar Potaraju argued that courts must approach questions of religious faith from the perspective of believers, and not through the lens of atheists or non-adherents. Emphasising the primacy of faith-based understanding in adjudicating religious rights, he submitted that external or non-believing viewpoints should not determine the scope of constitutionally protected practices.

“An atheist or a non-believer will have to be discarded even by this Hon’ble Court when you are testing my faith, my rights,” he said, asserting that religious practices must be evaluated within the framework of the belief system itself.

He framed this argument within a broader submission that fundamental rights, particularly under Articles 25 and 26, are rooted in the lived experiences and traditions of communities. He asserted that fundamental rights under Part III must be understood in light of India’s historical experience and civilisational diversity. Referring to constitutional debates and past judgments, he said the framers consciously protected religious freedom against the backdrop of centuries of social and cultural challenges.

“Fundamental Rights in Part 3 of the Constitution need to be understood having regard to the history of the nation… the framers had the history of lived experience of the people of this land.”

Mr Potaraju emphasised that the Constitution vests sovereignty in “we the people,” who have reserved core freedoms while distributing powers among institutions. He argued that personal liberty under Article 21 includes the freedom to choose one’s spiritual path, rituals, and even multiple modes of worship, reflecting India’s plural traditions.

At the same time, he cautioned courts against imposing external tests or interpretative limitations not found in the constitutional text, particularly in matters of religion. Raising concerns over judicial overreach, he questioned the consequences of courts curtailing rights in constitutional proceedings:

“If in an Article 32 petition my rights are curtailed, where do I go as a citizen?”

He further submitted that Article 26 protects not only denominational autonomy but also the right of religious groups to choose their associations, arguing that this freedom is inherent even in secular contexts and must apply equally in spiritual life.