Hijab Ban : No Religious Dress In Colleges During Pendency Of Case, Says Karnataka High Court| LIVE UPDATES [Day 3]

Hegde refers to the Kerala HC judgment which held hijab as an essential religious practice.

Hegde points out that in Bijoe Emmanuel, the Court did not frame the question whether the refusal to sing the national anthem was part of the essential religious practice of Jehova's Witness, and the Court examined if it was based on a bonafide religious belief.

Hegde : Constitutional rights cannot be left to the adjudication of politicians whether they are in power or not or whether they are elected or unelected.

Hegde narrates the facts of Bijoe Emmanuel and says that the situation is similar to the present cases.

Hegde : Here, the petitioners assert the right to wear hijab on the freedom of conscience as well as their right to religion. The lead case on freedom of conscience is Bijoe Emmanuel, where the court decided on the freedom of conscience without going into religious practice.

Hegde : Article 25 confers two rights. One is the freedom of conscience. Second is the freedom to practice and propagate religion. SC has held that only essential religious practices are protected under Art 25.

Hegde refers to the Judgment of SC in the case of Puttaswamy regarding the Right to Privacy.

Hegde resumes. He refers to the NALSA judgment which observed that clothing can also form part of one's expression and identity.

Chief Justice : We prima facie feel that that stage is over as the issues have been referred to us in the larger bench by the single bench. The single judge has already said the matter involves important constitutional issues.

Hegde : The normal rule of adjudication is that if the Court can dispose on a smaller question, without going into the larger question, which is the question of hijab here, lordships can use the smaller question.