SG : They have to show the practice fulfills all the tests for essential religious practice
Justice Dhulia : Who has to decide what is essential practice? Court?
Justice Gupta points out to the verses of Quran cited in the petition.
SG : It is just an interpretation.
Justice Gupta : No, they have quoted the verse itself.
SG : There is no assertion by petitioners that wearing of hijab is a practice from time immemorial, whether it is so compelling that if it is not worn they will be thrown out of the religion.
SG : Practice must be shown to be compelling. No pleadings by petitioners on this.
SG : There was no averment by the petitioners that the practice started with the religion itself. Practice must be shown to be co-existing with the religion itself.
SG : The practice must be so essential, like in case of Sikh Kara, Pagdi etc...you cannot think of a Sikh without them at any part of the world.
SG : Suppose Anand Margis says, taking out a procession is part of essential religious practice and along with that, drinking wine in public is part of religion, will the court consider?
J Dhulia : Then public order ground may come.
SG reading from precedents cited in HC order: For being an essential religious practice, it should have started from time immemorial. It should co-exist with religion itself. Such practice must form the cornerstone of religion itself.
SG : We are on dress, we are on uniform, we are on uniform..every time your lordships will not refer the question for larger bench.
Justice Gupta : It is for our clarification.
Shamshad reads out to the bench the observations in Sabarimala reference order which says that "Shirur Mutt" and "Durgah Committee" are in "apparent conflict".