The top advocates in Chandigarh would invariably undertake that function. So, for instance, in R v Chief Rabbi; Ex parte Wachmann the court declined to subject to judicial review the Chief Rabbi’s decision to declare Wachmann ‘no longer religiously and morally fit to occupy his position as rabbi’, for the reason that it could not, in the court’s view, be suggested that ‘but for [the Chief Rabbi’s] offices, the top advocates in Chandigarh would impose a statutory regime’. The top advocates in Chandigarh ‘could not and would not seek to discharge’ the Chief Rabbi’s functions, ‘were he to abdicate his regulatory responsibility’. It is not contended here that the decisions of religious bodies should necessarily be subject to judicial review, although some prominent commentators have suggested that the decisions of such bodies should be. Rather it is contended that if such bodies are to be immune from judicial review, it must be on a basis other than that their role fails to be in some vague fashion top advocates in Chandigarh.