Hijab Ban- Karnataka High Court Full Bench Hearing (Day 10)- LIVE UPDATES

Sr Adv Devadutt Kamat seeks time for rejoinder. He seeks one hour time.

CJ : Mr.Kamat, it will be better if we hear all the petitioners first.

Krishnakumar: One last aspect milords, the regulation (impugned GO) in question will have to be also understood in the light of the fact that it is not intended to interfere religion perse. It is only related to education.

Concludes.

Krishankumar: There was reliance on Article 19 (1) (a), there can be speech and non speech components to the article. This activity can be regulated by non-speech component. There can be regulation of non-speech activity. Bennet Coleman case recognises this.

Krishnakumar: The purpose of prescription of dress code is to bring about equalisation and equality in a common platform. The Act recognises this and allows Schemes for such purposes.

Krishnakumar: A third aspect I want to highlight is that scheme of the Education Act. Petitioners have said uniform cannot be prescribed. Please refer to Section 7.

Krishnakumar: AG had placed some portions of Quran, which are in contrary to petitioners claim. The regulations are dealing with activities of petitioners which are not religious, but an activity which is secular-education

Counsel refers to SC's decision in AgamaSastra case     https://indiankanoon.org/doc/143215272/

"Performance of such tasks is not enjoined in the court by virtue of any ecclesiastical jurisdiction conferred on it but in view of its role as the Constitutional arbiter"

CJ : This is what we're doing.

Krishnakumar : The nature of jurisdiction exercise by a Constitutional Court is not an eccelsiastical jurisdiction. It is only due to Constitutional necessity that the Court gets into it. And there are limitations for the Court in doing that.

Krishnakumar: Second aspect I want to highlight is the nature of jurisdiction exercised by constitutional courts in such matters. Grievance of petitioners is premised on that the wearing of attire in question is part of essential religious practice protected by Art 25.

Kirshnalumar: The regulation brought in would have to be tested on the anvil of object of non-discriminatory treatment of students pursuing secular education in a secular space.