Supreme Court will continue the hearing the batch of petitions challenging the Karnataka High Court's judgment which upheld the ban on the wearing of Hijab by Muslim girl students in some schools and colleges in the State. A bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia will hear the matterIn the last hearing of the matter, the main arguments were started by Senior Advocate...
Supreme Court will continue the hearing the batch of petitions challenging the Karnataka High Court's judgment which upheld the ban on the wearing of Hijab by Muslim girl students in some schools and colleges in the State.
A bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia will hear the matter
In the last hearing of the matter, the main arguments were started by Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde who stated that the Court did not need to go into the broader questions in the case, as it could be decided solely on the narrow point of whether the State Government had the power under the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 to prescribe the uniform. The arguments raised by Senior Advocate Hegde in the last hearings included a woman's right to elect to dress modestly, that scarf was already a part of uniform as a Chunni was permitted to be worn and; that the government did not have the power to prescribe uniform. Per contra, the Additional Solicitor General, K.M. Nataraj, appearing for the State of Karnataka had stated that the issue was very limited, and pertained to discipline in school alone. The Advocate General of Karnataka, Prabhuling Navadgi had also submitted that there was no government interference in the matter and the decision of permitting students to wear Hijab had been left to the College Development Councils.
FOLLOW LIVE UPDATES HERE
An advocate seeks permission to intervene, says he is for a Muslim scholar who is supporting the HC judgment.
Justice Gupta : We will allow, the only thing is we have to finish as early as possible.
Kamat : I can satisfy your lordships on ERP. But that is not really necessary. I will place it tomorrow.
J Gupta : Tomorrow we will start a bit early. By around 11.30. If we finish miscellanoues matters early, we can start earlier.
Kamat : I am saying in the alternative. If I succeed in showing that there can be no restriction to my right to wear right #Hijab, then I don't have to go into the question of essential religious practice. High Court missed that. HC first goes to ERP.
Kamat refers to Article 25 - Two fold submission here. We don't have to go into the question of essential religious faith..
Justice Dhulia : That we don't have to go.
Kamat : By actually saying if you come in school wearing a hijab we will not allow you, State violates Article 19.
Kamat : The GO is giving petitioners a Hobson's choice, forcing them to choose between their identity and dignity and right to education.
Kamat : By actually saying if you come in school wearing a hijab we will not allow you, State violates Article 19.
Justice Gupta : It is a way of expression, nothing more than that. It does not compare school with...
Kamat : If your lordship is putting like that, I bow down.
Justice Gupta : This comparision is general...
Kamat : It does not end there. Schools, courts, prisons, war rooms all equated in the same place.
J Gupta : Again, what it says, qualified public spaces like schools, courts,...you are in court, you are wearing a uniform
Kamat : High Court gives the examples of prison, detention and mentions qualified public spaces..this is leading to the argument that once you enter a school premise, you are like a convict....
Kamat : Mr.Advocate General I am on my legs.
AG : To attribute things to High Court and say High Court compared schools to prisons, something I cannot accept.