The Court observed that in a democratic system, people have the right to present their demands and raise their views before the appropriate forum.
While dismissing the petition, the Court advised the petitioners to pursue the matter with the government and the concerned authority itself.
The Supreme Court’s final order on the stray dog menace; directives also issued to criminally prosecute officials who fail to comply with the order.
The Supreme Court set aside its own earlier order issued in April 2025, in which the petitioners had been directed to approach the respective High Courts.
Matters of faith and belief cannot be argued in Court. The Court further said that it never decides what is essential and what is not essential according to Dharma (Religion); such decisions are made by Dharma itself.
It was argued in the Court that when the State enacts laws for social welfare, they should not be struck down on the basis of religious practices.
Justice B. V. Nagarathna said that no legal entity can claim personal faith. An individual may have faith in someone, but an organisation cannot claim to hold faith.
Justice BV Nagarathna responded that although the Constitution and all legal frameworks are supreme, history cannot be forgotten because it shapes the present.
Abhishek Manu Singhvi further argued that religion is tied to the beliefs of a group or community.
If entry or worship is governed by religious practices, it forms part of religion.