AG points out that Article 25(1) starts with "Subject to ....". The fundamental right starts with a non-obstante clause.
25(2) does not prevent state from making a law to regulate or restrict.
AG : Kindly come to Article 25(1).
CJ :There was one argument by Mr Yusuf, even if it is not treated as ERP, wearing of Hijab, then also stopping of wearing it will violate Article 25 as it is not only about freedom of religion but freedom of conscience.
AG: No milords the grievance of not permitting wearing of hijab, nothing has come to the state. A normal student would have been expected to give a representation. Milords if it would have been the case of the uniform, they would have come.. I will leave it at that.
AG : There is another aspect. There is a provision under the Act that if students find any problems they can give representation to PTA or State. They have come here directly.
Justice Dixit : Now there is a Government Order. Can the Committee decide its validity?
AG : Before that, I want to point out, there were no complaints or challenge to the Committee before the GO of February 5.
CJ: Now we come to the second aspect -practice of hijab is not Essential Religious Practice.
AG : Yes, I am coming to that. Article 25(1).
Justice Dixit: Who appoints the members of the CDC?
AG: I will have to find out if it is done by govt or the local MLA. That is very pertinent because if it is given to an MLA then there will be a group of his own persons.
AG: My submission is that GO is exercised under section 133 (2), therefore challenge has to fail. Milords may also note that there is no challenge to order passed( 2014 circular constituting CDCs)
Justice Dixit: If MLA is the chariman, his nominee will be the vice-chairman. If two persons are holding key positions whether other members will have any role to play except sitting and drinking tea?
AG : The desirability of MLAs in committee is a matter of debate.