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 10:41 AM GMT

      AG: Matter is of course a debate. My submission is that in these circumstances the govt did not intervene.

      The point is State wants to treat everyone equally.

    • 18 Feb 2022 10:41 AM GMT

      Justice Dixit : But point is, MLA is a more political character. Whether that character should have overtone in the administration of an education institution? It is not about this party or that party.

    • 18 Feb 2022 10:40 AM GMT

      Justice Dixit : They had said, MLA from X party, next election MLA from Y party or independent MLAs also, can those political views enter the campus? It is not that we have no respect for MLAs. 

    • 18 Feb 2022 10:39 AM GMT

      AG : There is a local MLA, parents represenative, students representatives and others. The entire fulcrum comes together. Therefore there cannot be such a criticism to such a committee. 

    • 18 Feb 2022 10:39 AM GMT

      AG : Without Govt approval there can't be a committee with MLAs.

      CJ : We cannot presume.

      AG : I will produce the files.

    • 18 Feb 2022 10:38 AM GMT

      CJ : Govt order is issued in the name of the Govt. This is a circular.

      AG : I will bring on record the files.

      CJ : This is a clarification which we require to appreciate your argument.

    • 18 Feb 2022 10:36 AM GMT

      AG : Such circulars are issued by the approval of the Govt.

      CJ : Was the govt approval there?

      AG : Certainly yes. I can place the records. Where a MLA is appointed to the committee, it would not have been without approval of the govt.

    • 18 Feb 2022 10:35 AM GMT

      CJ : The circular which you have shown, which constitutes CDC, has been issued by an under-secretary. Can that be treated as an order under Section 133?

      AG : This has to be traced to 133.

      CJ : This is not a govt order, it is not a notification. It is a circular by under-secy

    • 18 Feb 2022 10:34 AM GMT

      AG: We have exercised section 133 (2) (for constituting CDC). If we had given it to the Principal, Ravivarma Kumar sir would have said you have given it to an employee. Kindly look at the constitution of CDC, there cannot be a more representative character.

    • 18 Feb 2022 10:32 AM GMT

      AG : CDCs are there since 2014. None of the colleges have come before the Court questioning the CDCs. Students have come before the court and say that the authority is extra-statute. The challenge must fail on that ground itself.

    Next Story