Both the Chandrachud's r brilliant contextualizers of the Constitution& law. They do so by walking the deliberately kept fuzzy boundaries of definition of what is religion and what is "political ideology". The monopoly over context and nuance that destroys all legitimacy of law. https://twitter.com/barandbench/status/1338809479182225414

Somehow some practitioners of law, and interpreters of law appointed by state, unilaterally decide who alone can can define religion and ideology, and that too on a "case by case" basis: that is definitions will differ based on religion or ideology in context.

where exactly was "Hinduism" and "essential quality of Hindu" - that is the framework Savarakar's used to define "Hindutva", devoid of "political ideology"? How was ever the practised faith of the Hindu's devoid of their political ideology?

Can the same logic of separation be applied to Islam? Political ideology is inseparable from practised Islam, as claimed by their own "scholars" - does it mean insulting and abusing its inseparable political ideological component will not be "insulting religion"?

If such a case actually happens in the future, one can expect the sudden appearance of "nuance and context" and other articles of constitution and the ephemerally convenient "spirit and philosophy" of Constitution to make an exception for Islam.

However we should applaud Chandrachud for providing the unique excuse that as long as an abuser does not bring in her/his personal religious inclinations into the same statement of abuse she/he can claim that it was not between "two communities".

If you can abuse any community without giving out your own faith in the same abuse or claim a null-community (heck I think he can even accept self-proclaimed "individual" abuse and hence not belonging to any community - community needs at least two persons)

as per Chandrachud it doesnt trigger IPC. But in case of deemed abuse of "islam" I don't think these arguments will hold - in that case the "intent" to abuse a religion will be the primary observation - be it from null, trishanku, individual status.

It might also suddenly be realized, that no person in society is an "island", that they are a part of community by shared love or hatred of a belief, faith, ideology. But such arguments will only be valid if it helps grant absolute immunity to Islam from any critical analysis.

In fact the one thing left for folks similar in mindset to the Chandrachuds, is to push for - by legal precedence , the technique used to make laws be interpreted in certain ways perhaps not imagined when framed - formal IPC against "islamophobia".

Once a formal explicit exception is made in criminal law against "islamophobia", Hindus can be freely abused and nothing can be said in criticism on any aspect of Islam. This lack of specification in the Constitution is creating so much problems.