AG: This issue we have left it to the complete autonomy of institutions. I cannot improvise beyond what is said in GO. If this gives an indication to the institutions, of course it is something the institutions must understand.
CJ: What was the necessity of mentioning the judgements in the GO?
Justice Dixit : Let us understand the purport of the order. Whether the colleges or schools, can they ignore (the judgements mentioned in the order) and prescribe?
AG: Conscious stand of the state is that we do not want to intervene in religious matter. We could have said hijab was against secularism and order and could have said it is not permissible. We have not. It is a stated stand of the state we did not want to intervene.
Justice Dixit : You have not articulated properly that wearing of hijab is not prohibited. But these orders are meant for common people, teachers, students members of CDC, how will they interpret it?
AG : If a CDC permits wearing of hijab, under Education Act Section 131 we have revisional powers, and if there is objection, state can decide. As of now in the order we have given autonomy to the CDC.
AG: State is very conscious, we have kept away from it and we have given autonomy to CDC.
CJ: Meaning thereby that CDC if they allow wearing hijab, you have no objection to it?
CJ: If we accept your arguments that the order is innocuous ..where was the necessity to say all these things?
Chief Justice : What we want to know is...what was the necessity of this GO? You say the GO is innocuous. But you say banning hijab will not violate Article 25. What was the necessity of saying all that?
AG says there is no issue of hijab in the Govt Order.
"I have read this ten times. I have not found unless they want to add words".
AG refers to the last portion of the order which refers to clothes being in consonance with unity & equality.
"Here the draftsman went a bit enthusiastic. What was meant was, in case no uniform is prescribed, please wear decent clothes. I agree it could have been worded better"