Hijab Ban- Supreme Court Hearing- DAY-8 Live Updates

Dave : Young Lawyers case (Sabarimala) was an opposite case, it was a case where the right of women to enter temple was prevented on certain tenets...

Justice Gupta : The reasoning appears to be if the essential religious practice violates constitutional rights, it cannot be protected.

Dave : Article 25 itself say that.

Justice Dhulia : What is the meaning of this (HC observations) that a person seeking refuge under Article 25 he must show it is an essential religious practice and its engagement with constitutional morality?

Dave : Normally, the practice is if a judgment is before larger bench, lordships will not touch the judgment.

Dave : It is a completely incorrect conclusion by the High Court relying on some out of context lines from Young Lawyers. And even if assuming HC is right, Young Lawyers is pending review.

Dave : The learned judge(Karnataka HC) has completely ignored the Shirur Mutt judgment principles..

Dave : High Court has singularly referred on Young Lawyers decision (Sabarimala case) and the case has been expressly referred to 9-judge.

Justice Gupta : The review has been referred, the judgment is good law.

Dave : Right. There is no stay

Dave : Article 25 is clear and the Constituent Assembly debates cement that conclusion.

Justice Gupta : Again my question is, the Constituent Assembly had 240 members, each member represents one opinion..can it be taken as a collective view? We have to go by the adopt by the definition finally given by the Constitution...

Dave quotes from Kesavananda Bharti - it was held Constituent Assembly Debates, though not conclusive, can throw light on the intention.

Refers to another precedent saying CAD can be looked into,