Hijab Ban- Karnataka High Court Full Bench Hearing(Day 6)- LIVE UPDATES

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

18 Feb 2022 8:54 AM GMT

  • Hijab Ban- Karnataka High Court Full Bench Hearing(Day 6)- LIVE UPDATES

    Karnataka High Court Full Bench will continue hearing on a batch of petitions challenging the hijab ban in educational institutions.The matter is before a bench comprising Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice JM Khazi will hear the petitions today at 2.30 PM.On Friday the Court requested the State to re-open the educational institutions at the earliest and...

    Karnataka High Court Full Bench will continue hearing on a batch of petitions challenging the hijab ban in educational institutions.

    The matter is before a bench comprising Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice JM Khazi will hear the petitions today at 2.30 PM.

    On Friday the Court requested the State to re-open the educational institutions at the earliest and has restrained students from wearing any sort of religious clothes in classrooms, regardless of their faith, while the matter is pending hearing.

    Senior advocate Devadatt Kamat appearing on behalf of aggrieved students made extensive arguments on Monday. It is the petitioner's case that the right to wear hijab is an essential religious practice under Islam, and the State is not empowered to interfere with such rights under Articles 14,19 and 25 of the Constitution.

    Kamat had underscored that the declaration made by the State government that wearing of a headscarf is not protected by Article 25 of the Constitution was "totally erroneous'. It was also submitted that the conduct of the State government in delegating to the College Development Committee (CDC) to decide whether to allow headscarves or not is 'totally illegal'.

    On Wednesday Prof Ravivarma Kumar, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners today argued that the state is discriminating against Muslim girls, solely on the basis of their religion. He highlighted that the Government Order dated February 5 targets wearing of hijab whereas other religious symbols are not taken into account. This leads to hostile discrimination violating Article 15 of the Constitution.

    Sr Adv Yusuf Muchhala argued that the impugned GO, preventing Muslim girls from wearing headscarves, suffers from manifest arbitrariness. He referred to the principle of manifest arbitrariness used by the Supreme Court to strike down triple talaq in the Shayra Bano case.

    "They are only putting one apron over their head. When we say uniform, we cannot strictly confine to the dress code. What was the practice adopted at school has to be seen. It has been changed without notice. Fairness requires notice. Fairness requires being heard."

    Advocate General will start his arguments for State of Karnataka Today

    FOLLOW THE LIVE UPDATES HERE

    Live Updates

    • 18 Feb 2022 10:54 AM GMT

      AG points out that Article 25(1) starts with "Subject to ....". The fundamental right starts with a non-obstante clause.

      25(2) does not prevent state from making a law to regulate or restrict.

    • 18 Feb 2022 10:51 AM GMT

      AG : I have answer to that.

      AG refers to Art 25

    • 18 Feb 2022 10:51 AM GMT

      AG : Kindly come to Article 25(1).

      CJ :There was one argument by Mr Yusuf, even if it is not treated as ERP, wearing of Hijab, then also stopping of wearing it will violate Article 25 as it is not only about freedom of religion but freedom of conscience.

    • 18 Feb 2022 10:49 AM GMT

      AG: No milords the grievance of not permitting wearing of hijab, nothing has come to the state. A normal student would have been expected to give a representation. Milords if it would have been the case of the uniform, they would have come.. I will leave it at that.

    • 18 Feb 2022 10:49 AM GMT

      AG : There is another aspect. There is a provision under the Act that if students find any problems they can give representation to PTA or State. They have come here directly.

      Justice Dixit : Now there is a Government Order. Can the Committee decide its validity?

    • 18 Feb 2022 10:46 AM GMT

      AG : Before that, I want to point out, there were no complaints or challenge to the Committee before the GO of February 5.

    • 18 Feb 2022 10:45 AM GMT

      CJ: Now we come to the second aspect -practice of hijab is not Essential Religious Practice.

      AG : Yes, I am coming to that. Article 25(1).

    • 18 Feb 2022 10:44 AM GMT

      Justice Dixit: Who appoints the members of the CDC?

      AG: I will have to find out if it is done by govt or the local MLA. That is very pertinent because if it is given to an MLA then there will be a group of his own persons.

    • 18 Feb 2022 10:44 AM GMT

      AG: My submission is that GO is exercised under section 133 (2), therefore challenge has to fail. Milords may also note that there is no challenge to order passed( 2014 circular constituting CDCs)

    • 18 Feb 2022 10:43 AM GMT

      Justice Dixit: If MLA is the chariman, his nominee will be the vice-chairman. If two persons are holding key positions whether other members will have any role to play except sitting and drinking tea?

      AG : The desirability of MLAs in committee is a matter of debate.

    Next Story