Kamat reads out the GO - "students coming in religious dress has become an obstacle to unity. Since the prohibition of head scarf is not a violation of Art 25". Kamat says "State is sitting in judgment".
J Dhuli : It is not sitting in judgment, it is an interpretation.
Kamat : I was surprised to see Advocate General saying GO was innocous. It is not an innocous GO.
Kamat : Secularism does not mean that students of only one faith will not display their religion. GO says..
Justice Gupta : No GO does not say that, it says due to some issues, all students will wear uniform prescribed.
Kamat : GO may not have been correctly placed
Kamat refers to passages in Aruna Roy judgment - secularism has a positive meaning.
Justice Dhulia : You were citing judgments of England. But if you go to the continent, judgments are against you.
Kamat : Yes, France has taken a diferent view..Austria..
Justice Gupta : Mr.Kamat, be in India, one hour you are in India and then you are everywhere across globe
Justice Gupta : Constitution does not say that.
Kamat refers to Aruna Roy judgment.
Kamat : The constitutional standpoint is all religions are manifestation of same god.
Justice Gupta : Does all religions accept this? Is that the stream of thought accepted by all religions?
Kamat : I was paraphrasing what was said in Aruna Roy judgment.
Kamat : State says this is an aspect of Secularism. Secularism in India is not the concept of negative secularism as followed in France or Turkey, where display of religion in public is offensive. This Court has not accepted that, but has accepted positive secularism.
Kamat refers to a House of Lords judgment. The school had allowed hijab, but the student turned up in burqa or jilbab. Court said school has provided reasonable accommodation by way of salwar and headscarf and anything beyond is unreasonable.
Kamat refers to a Canada judgment allowing wearing of kara in school for Sikhs.