Karnataka Hijab Ban: Supreme Court Hearing DAY-4 -LIVE UPDATES

Justice Gupta : So in this case Article 26 is not applied?

Mucchala : There is no religious denomination before the Court.

J Gupta : So your argument is that the right to wear the veil comes from 25 and 19.

Mucchala : Right.

Mucchala : So far as individual's rights are concerned, there is no question of application of essential religious practice. That question comes only when a religious denomination is asserting its right.

Mucchala : The entire question of essential religious practice developed in that line (Article 26 rights) and also under Article 25(2) when the State is making a law. 

Mucchala : Article 25 speaks of individual's right. Article 26 speaks about religious denomination's right. When a group asserts their right under 26, then the question comes what are matters of religion.

Muchhala : It is not the job of the court to say that why do you follow this scholar and not that scholar. It is not the job of the court.

Mucchala reads out the parts from the State's objections which state that there are differences among scholars regarding necessity of wearing of hijab.

"Scholars may disagree, but what about lay people, they may pick up a practice", he adds.

Muchhala : Right to freedom of expression and freedom of conscience are inter related and complement each other. I have developed this point further .Please read my written submissions.

Muchhala quotes from Puttsawmay : Dignity cannot be separated from privacy. Privacy is the ultimate constitutional value for an individual. The choice of appearance are aspects of privacy.

Mucchala : I need not say how much of my religion I am following. I may express a part of my religion, I may choose not to express another party.

Muchhala continues reading from Puttaswamy judgment on right to privacy.