Hijab Ban- Supreme Court Hearing- DAY-9 Live Updates

Bench requests Venkataramani to give a summary note of his arguments.

Venkataramani : In this case, is there an intent to discriminate. The answer is No. That's what the State has said.

Venktaramani : So once it is under Article 25, then you have to show a justification to travel beyond that right. To claim Art 19, you have to show something beyond what the Quran says.

Venktaramani : So it is all about religion, nothing but religion. If it is not conscience, then it is religion. Sometimes there could be overlapping depending on the fact situation.

Venkataramani : Wearing a band against Vietnam war. That is a conscientious objections. Conscience is about ethical dispositions. In a matter like hijab, there is no conscience element.

J Dhulia : How can you say that?

V : It is based on religious belief, Quranic prescription

Justice Dhulia to Venkataramani: We got your point, for teacher it is a distraction.

Venkataramani : Conscience is a secular domain, distinct from religious right. Emmanuel case talks about conscience. Jehovah's witness case is based on scriptures. So essentially religious.

Justice Dhulia : Nobody is claiming any superiority.

Venkataramani : It is bound to happen once you allow the assertion of identities..

Venkataramani : The absence of assertion of the identities is a conducive environment to inculcate values about the diversity.

Justice Dhulia : How will you prepare the students, when the go out of the schools, when they face the world, they will face the great diversity of the country, in culture, in dress, cuisine, so this can be an oppurtunity to prepare them. That can be also a perspective.

Venkataramani : In a school how will you inculcate the values? In the absence of these identities or in the assertion of these identities. There will be more and more claims and where will you draw the lines.