Hijab Ban- Karnataka High Court Full Bench Hearing(Day 3)- LIVE UPDATES

Court now permits Sr Adv Professor Ravivarma Kumar to begin submissions.

Kumar: Kindly refer to Statement of objection filed by the state.

Adv Kaleeswaram Raj begins submissions for an intervenor. Prof Ravivarma Kumar Sr Adv seeks to submit for petitioner in connected case. Adv Mir says his petition is the first in the order. Bench asks all to hold on to clear the confusion.

Kamat : This order in effect suspends fundamental rights. Kindly do not continue this interim order.

Kamat concludes his submissions. Expresses gratitude to the bench for patient hearing and to his associates who helped him in research.

Kamat : I respectfully submit that the sweep of your lordships order is extremely broad and it is in the teeth of Article 25 and other rights. Kindly make some leeway. In the meanwhile permit us to wear the head scarf in addition to uniform. Consideration will take time.

Kamat: Under Article 25, there is no concept of subject to reasonable restrictions.

CJ: Yesterday only we pointed how the article starts.. "Subject to...".

Kamat refers to the interim order passed by the bench.

CJ : In that order, we did not decide anything.

Kamat : May be I use the wrong word expelled. They are not allowed entry.

CJ : Whether they are not allowed entry in class or school?

Kamat: Not allowing inside the classroom or school has the same consequences.

CJ: How you are applying the doctrine of proportionality if they are not expelled?

Justice Dixit : A passenger not allowed entry in a train because of not having a ticket.. how is that covered under doctrine of proportionality?

Chief Justice : In your case, students have been expelled?

Kamat : They are not allowed to enter.

Justice Dixit : Expulsion is different from not allowing entry.

Kamat submits that the Education Act has no provision to expel a student for not adhering to uniform.

"If you are expelled for an extra attire, doctrine of proportionality will come in", Kamat submits.