Advocate 4: this is not merely a conflict between individuals and group. individuals are also a group of 10-50 women who are excluded. there is horizontal application attached to article 25. refers to the entry of women in Haji Ali Dargah

J Nagarathna: nobody has argued what does subject to other part of Part III means. that is the whole subject of 9 judge bench. in 17 days

Advocate: subject to part III would mean all rights

J Nagarathna: you want to subject to articles 14, 15 and 17 but not 25 and 26

Advocate: individuals who are subject to exclusion are those who belong to close knit community face the highest form of excommunication and that is why a third person should be allowed

Advocate Harshit Anand: everybody's thrust has been on harmonisating, proportionality, but hard claims arising the only solution could be constitutional morality. what are hard claims? for instance santhara in jains, prajo Paryushana and soku shik bhudu- right now criminalised in japan-these are hard claims because these cases are where article 21 right to live and health are in conflict with the same individual- this is basically them saying I want to waive my right to practice these practices.

the second argument is the principle of proportionality or harmonisation doesn't apply because the other right will go. what is the solution? principled argument of constitutional morality will come to rescue even if you don't wish to exercise it. fundamental rights can't be waived of.