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

Kamat: Their right to education which is paramount is being put on back burner. As a state you should facilitate and create an enabling atmosphere.

Kamat: Lastly I want to say is this, what is the net result. The net result is people who want head scarf or turban, are denied right to education on the pretext of this GO.

CJ : That is with respect to dignity it was argued.

Kamat: Other jurisdiction cited was france. France and Turkey are exception to the Convention on Child rights.

Kamat : The international convention expressly accepts headscarf. I am saying this in response to the argument that it is a regressive practice. Hijab is not a regressive practise, wearing of headscarf is diversity.

Kamat : There is a Parliamentary law, Commissions for Protection of Rights of Children Act. The Act says rights of child mean the same rights as the international convention of child rights, to which India is a signatory.

Kamat : Mr.Poovayya cited a Turkish judgment upholding scarf ban. This decision has been overruled. They have reversed that head scarf ban.

Kamat: Arguments are made on possibility of abuse. If we do this then some brahmin boy will turn up with this. In constitution jurisdiction ,we cannot decide on hypothesis but on facts.

Kamat : Sabarimala, Navtej Johar judgments are pro-choice. Constitutional morality is pro-choice. It is a restriction on state power.

Kamat: Then Constitutional morality is cited. This is again inverting our rights jurisprudence. Constitutional morality is not restriction on fundamental right but it is a restriction on states powers.

Kamat : AG made an astonishing submission that if you claim Article 19 it will destroy Article 25 rights.

Justice Dixit : I have replied to him. RC Cooper was referred.

Kamat : RC Cooper reiterated in Maneka Gandhi, Puttaswamy cases.