Kamat : Even a core religious practice, if it offends public order, morality and health, it can be regulated.
CJ : Can Article 25 (1) and 25 (2) be read separately?
CJ : What about Article 25(2)?
Kamat : Under Artilce 25 (2) state has been given the power to restrict any economic, financial, political or secular activity associated with religion. This very concept means other core religious activities of religion can be restricted.
Justice Dixit: Whether Essential Religious Practice is absolute or susceptible to regulation by state by law?
Kamat: As far as ERP is concerned, that very doctrine connotes that it is not related to economic, financial, political or secular activity.
Justice Dixit : Can you articulate the ration emerging from Bijoe Emmanuel regarding State's power?
Kamat : According to me, state has power to regulate economic, financial or political, or secular practise of religion.
Kamat : A college development committee has no statutory basis.
Kamat: Law providing for social welfare and reform is definitely a restriction under Article 25 (2). The question is where is that Law on the basis of which the headscarf is prohibited.
Kamat: A College Development Committee does not have any statutory basis. It is not passed under any statute, but some executive order and it does not pass the muster to regulate public order.
Kamat : This is a case where students have been wearing head scarf for years together.
Kamat says in para 6 of the writ petition it is stated that the students have been wearing hijab since admission until it was stopped recently. (Kamat represents students of Kundapura college).
Kamat says the facts of "Bijoe Emmanuel" case is similar to the present case.
"Girls wearing scarf causing no harm to anybody and attending classes. If we replace the facts of this case, transpose it to this case (Bijoe emmanuel), see how it fits on all counts"