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

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

24 Feb 2022 8:51 AM GMT

  • Hijab Ban- Karnataka High Court Full Bench Hearing (Day 10)- 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 Monday, Chief Justice sought a clarification from the State regarding its stand on banning hijab....

    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 Monday, Chief Justice sought a clarification from the State regarding its stand on banning hijab. This arose in view of the AG's submission that the Government Order dated February 5, which has been challenged in the writ petitions, does not prescribe any ban on hijab and that it is only an "innocuous" order which asks students to follow the uniforms prescribed by their institutions.

    "What is your stand? Whether hijab can be permitted in institutions or not?", the Chief Justice raised a pointed query.

    "The operative portion of the GO leaves it to the institutions", the AG submitted.

    "If institutions permit hijab, you have objections?", the CJ asked further

    "If the institutions are to permit, we would possibly take a decision as and when the issue arises...", the AG responded.

    "You have to take a stand", the CJI reiterated.

    "My answer is that we have not prescribed anything. The Order , it gives complete autonomy to institution to decide uniform. Whether students be allowed to wear dress or apprarel which could be symbol of religion, the stand of the state is.. element of introducing religious dress should not be there in uniform. As a matter of principle, the answer is in preamble of Karnataka Education Act which is to foster secular environment", the AG replied.

    AG argued that petitioners have not shown that wearing hijab is an essential religious practice in Islam and thus, the protection under Article 25 of the Constitution is not available to them.

    Yesterday, the High Court clarified that the interim order passed by it on February 10, which prohibited wearing of religious dresses by students in classrooms, will apply to both degree colleges and Pre-University (PU) Colleges, where uniform has been prescribed.

    The Court also clarified that its order applies only to students and not teachers.

    FOLLOW THE LIVE UPDATES HERE

    Live Updates

    • 24 Feb 2022 11:32 AM GMT

      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.

    • 24 Feb 2022 11:32 AM GMT

      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.

    • 24 Feb 2022 11:31 AM GMT

      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.

    • 24 Feb 2022 11:31 AM GMT

      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.

    • 24 Feb 2022 11:28 AM GMT

      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.

    • 24 Feb 2022 11:26 AM GMT

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

    • 24 Feb 2022 11:26 AM GMT

      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.

    • 24 Feb 2022 11:25 AM GMT

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

    • 24 Feb 2022 11:25 AM GMT

      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.

    • 24 Feb 2022 11:24 AM GMT

      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.

    Next Story