Kamat : High Court says pleadings are "militantly is absent". I don't know what English is this. There is no question of militancy here.
Justice Gupta : In a writ petition, there is a mention that she was wearing hijab...
Kamat : And there is no counter-affidavit controverting this fact.
Kamat : They made a grandiose statement that till 2021 nobody wore hijab and this happened suddenly in 2022. HC also says there is no pleading in the writ petition that you were wearing hijab since admission.
Kamat : High Court has supplied reasons to the GO. How can the High Court come to the aid of the Govt?
Justice Gupta : Don't take it to illogical ends. You want it to be decided by the police or state cabinet or the Principal?
Kamat : So the circular says students should wear clothes going with unity, equality and public order. Who has to decide?
Justice Gupta : Principal will decide.
Kamat : Principal can't decide public order. It is a State subject.
Kamat : In the pleadings of State, the ground of public order is taken in the counter.
Sr Adv Devadatt Kamat says the Kannada word used in circular is for "public order", and the same word is used for "public order" in the official Kannada translatation of Constitution, and so State can't say it does not mean "public order" and that it means "law and order"
Alam says a recent decision also holds executive instruction is not a "law" to restrict Article 19 rights.