Hijab Ban In Karnataka- Supreme Court Hearing- Day-2 -LIVE UPDATES

Kamat : I will only take 2-3 minutes more.

Kamat refers to observations from judgment that asking the girl to remove nose ring even for a short period will send out the message that "Sonali and her religion were not welcome".

"How beautifully they have put", he says.

1

2

8

Kamat refers to the passages from the judgment which hold that nose stud is an expression of Tamil Hindu culture. Kamat says that the Court refrained from holding if it was strictly religious or cultural considering the overlap between both practices.

Justice Gupta : You have cited three judgments for reasonable accommodation, we don't need to delve into these..

Kamat says the school argued that there is no violation of the student's right as she can wear noseringh outside school. Court rejected it.

It is similar to the argument wear hijab outside class, Kamat says.

Kamat referring to the South African judgment which allowed a Tamil Hindu student to wear nose ringh in school.

Kamath: Nose pin is worn by women to develop good virtue and also it is believed to bring prosperity. It is very much religious

Kamat : I am a student of Hindu religion.

Kamat says wearing of "Bindi" and "nose ringh" has religious significance while performing certain rituals.

Justice Gupta : But nosepin is not religious, mangalsutra is..

Kamat : Evidence was led to show it has a religious belief too.

Justice Gupta : All over the world women wear earrings, but it is no religious practice.

Kamat refers to the South African judgment which allowed a Hindu girl to wear nose ring in school as part of her cultural belief.

Kamat : The argument was it will lead to parade of horribles..it was rejected..last day your lordship asked if they can come in minis, midis etc?

Justice Dhulia : But this was in a different context.

J Dhulia : And read the operative part (of Bijoe Emmanuel).

Kamat : "our tradition teaches tolerance; our philosophy preaches tolerance; our constitution practices tolerance; let us not dilute it". If this was practised by the State, we would not have been before this Court.