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 11:22 AM GMT

      Kamat says an amendment was moved during the Constituent Assembly Debates to say that no visible signs of religion should be displayed in public. This was expressly rejected by the framers of the Constitution. State is now trying to resurrect this. This is not permissible.

    • 24 Feb 2022 11:21 AM GMT

      Kamat refers to Constituent Assembly Debates: What is propounded today, what is today resurrected is exactly what our constitutional framers rejected.

    • 24 Feb 2022 11:21 AM GMT

      Kamat : Restriction must have a direct relation to the object sought to be achieved. If the object is to say that hijab a regressive practise, it has to be evident from the plain reading of the (Education) Act and the rules made thereunder.

    • 24 Feb 2022 11:20 AM GMT

      Kamat : Education Act is not an act for reform of religion within the meaning of Article 25(2). There is no judgment which talks of an accidental infringement by an alien act. Education Act and Uniform rule cannot be a measure of social reform.

    • 24 Feb 2022 11:20 AM GMT

      Kamat: Article 25 (1) is not a restrictive paradigm, the canpoy and width of rights is not capable of being put in a straight jacket formula. If I say there is violation, there should be first a restriction. I am saying not permitting to wear head scarf is infringement

    • 24 Feb 2022 11:18 AM GMT

      Justice Dixit : You have come to the Court saying your rights are infringed. When we speak of restriction, it is in reference to a right which has been allegedly infringed. This is the context in which we see things.

    • 24 Feb 2022 11:17 AM GMT

      Kamat : State has inverted the law here. ERP is not a restriction on fundamental right under 25(1). ERP is a restriction on the State's power to interfere with the religious practice. The question therefore which should fall is where is the restriction.

    • 24 Feb 2022 11:15 AM GMT

      Kamat : If there is any case which fits in, it is Bijoe Emmanuel. The question SC asked is not to the students show me if it is the essential practice. SC did not ask the students show me your right. SC asked where is the restriction.

    • 24 Feb 2022 11:15 AM GMT

      CJ: It is the institution which has prescribed uniform.

      Kamat: The question which will fall before lordhsips is whether Education act and rules is social reform as far as Islam is concerned.

      CJ: Artcle 25 (2) is reformatory power given to the state.

    • 24 Feb 2022 11:13 AM GMT

      CJ: We want to know what right has been infringed.

      Kamat: Before seeing the right, lordships will have to see there is infringement or not.

      CJ : You have come to court so you have to establish the right.

    Next Story