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 Friday the Court requested the State to re-open the educational institutions at the earliest and...
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 Friday the Court requested the State to re-open the educational institutions at the earliest and has restrained students from wearing any sort of religious clothes in classrooms, regardless of their faith, while the matter is pending hearing.
Senior advocate Devadatt Kamat appearing on behalf of aggrieved students made extensive arguments on Monday. It is the petitioner's case that the right to wear hijab is an essential religious practice under Islam, and the State is not empowered to interfere with such rights under Articles 14,19 and 25 of the Constitution.
Yesterday, Kamat had underscored that the declaration made by the State government that wearing of a headscarf is not protected by Article 25 of the Constitution was "totally erroneous'. It was also submitted that the conduct of the State government in delegating to the College Development Committee (CDC) to decide whether to allow headscarves or not is 'totally illegal'.
Bench rises. Hearing to continue tomorrow at 2.30 PM.
Sr Adv Adish Agarwala mentions one intervention application opposing the petitions.
CJ says no interventions are being permitted.
Advocate General seeks 2 days time to file objections to the IA seeking clarification.
Bench grants.
Kumar : Seeking a clarification..just to use the same duppata to cover their head. Let the students get back to the class.
Sr Advocate Professor Ravivarma Kumar: A proper application is made seeking clarification of the interim order. Yesterday due to some technical reason it was not considered.
CJ: We are left with WP no 3148. That is a PIL. Also 3422 that is also a PIL. Only two writ petitions left to be heard.
CJ : We do not know whether you are making arguments for interim or final stage. We have not disposed of any interim applications. Let that be clear. We have passed only interim order.
Muchhala concludes arguments.
Muchhala: I believe these arguments are at the interim stage and not final stage. There is some confusion in my mind. Please forgive me for asking this.
CJ : You people have started arguing and we have started hearing.
Muchhala: What is the constitutional right that is infringed, Article 25, my right to conscience and my right to have an education. Thus the action is totally disproportionate.
Mucchala on the second test of proportionality regarding less restrictive measures : Assuming they want a universal uniform, why not consult persons whose rights are affected?