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.
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'.
On Wednesday Prof Ravivarma Kumar, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners today argued that the state is discriminating against Muslim girls, solely on the basis of their religion. He highlighted that the Government Order dated February 5 targets wearing of hijab whereas other religious symbols are not taken into account. This leads to hostile discrimination violating Article 15 of the Constitution.
Sr Adv Yusuf Muchhala argued that the impugned GO, preventing Muslim girls from wearing headscarves, suffers from manifest arbitrariness. He referred to the principle of manifest arbitrariness used by the Supreme Court to strike down triple talaq in the Shayra Bano case.
"They are only putting one apron over their head. When we say uniform, we cannot strictly confine to the dress code. What was the practice adopted at school has to be seen. It has been changed without notice. Fairness requires notice. Fairness requires being heard."
FOLLOW THE LIVE-UPDATES HERE
Bench rises.
Hearing to continue tomorrow at 2.30 pm.
An advocate says mediation should be directed to resolve the issue.
CJ : Constitutional issues are involved. How can mediation be done in such matter? Mediation can be done between consenting parties. You move to petitioners and respondents and if they agree, we will consider.
Kotwal makes a request to allow him to clear the office objections.
CJ : We have dismissed your petition. We can't help. Sorry.
CJ : If you want Mr.Jha, extend your help to your friends on the respondent side.
Jha : Your lordships have been only hearing one side.
CJ: Mr Jha, we have said we will first hear petitioners, then respondents and if after we feel we will hear intervenors. Right not we are not permitting anyone to intervene.
Adv Subhash Jha seeks half an hour as intervenor.
" We will demonstrate that this is not the first time our court has been called upon to decide on the issue of Hijab and beard. Courts have held hijab is not integral"..
Sr Adv Sajan Povvayya, appearing for a CDC, says he will make submission after the AG has completed his arguments.
Sr Adv S S Naganand, appearing for some professors against whom some allegations have been made, says he will argue after the AG.
CJ : Alright, we will rise then.
AG: I need sometime to argue. I will do it tomorrow.
CJ : If you are you going to modify the GO, then you may take time (laughs)
AG requests for tomorrow.
Adv Shadan Farsat pleads for being heard in his intervention application.
CJ: If we hear you, we will have to hear everyone. All this discrimination, we cannot do that.
Advocate General : I will start tomorrow Milord.
Justice Dixit: Such an important matter, a special bench is constituted. Petitioners have so beautifully presented their case.