Hijab Ban- Karnataka High Court Full Bench Hearing (Day 7)- LIVE UPDATES

Update: 2022-02-21 08:37 GMT
Live Updates - Page 8
2022-02-21 09:39 GMT

AG : Lot of apprehensions were exhibited by number of members during the constituent assembly debates. K M Munshi and other expresses, if we are to adopt as secular state, why have religion as right. That may result in some religions placing their hegemony over others

2022-02-21 09:38 GMT

AG refers to Dr Ambedkar's debates on Article 28. Quotes Ambedkar in saying religions teach they are only path of salvation and others are false and this can lead to social disharmony. Quotes Ambedkar saying Islam and Christianity teaches that only they are true

2022-02-21 09:33 GMT

CJ: Conscience and religion are two different aspects.

Justice Dixit: Different but mutually existing also.

2022-02-21 09:31 GMT

Justice Dixit points out that in the Constituent Assembly, there was a debate on whether to include "conscience" in Article 25. Dr Ambedkar suggested it to be included, saying even people who do not believe in God are also entitled to Art 25 protection.

2022-02-21 09:30 GMT

AG : Question of ERP would possibly not come within the concept of Freedom of Conscience.

2022-02-21 09:30 GMT

Justice J M Khazi : I want to know whether Essential Religious Practice is applicable to freedom of conscience.

AG refers to Constituent Assembly Debates.

AG: How you mainfest your consciousness amounts to religious practise.

2022-02-21 09:29 GMT

AG: GO order is innocuous and it is consciously so. This question, controversy would not have arisen. If petitioners would have come and say the college is not permitting us to wear hijab as a head scarf, it is different. But they want to wear this head scarf as a religious symbol

2022-02-21 09:28 GMT

AG refers to Justice Chandrachud's decision in Sabarimala case to say that a Constitutional court has an important role to decide whether a religious practice can be permitted the protection under Article 25.

2022-02-21 09:28 GMT

AG : If we had decided the hijab cannot be worn, it would have been seriously challenged on the ground that State has interfered in a religious matter.

2022-02-21 09:26 GMT

AG : In Feb 5 order, we do not decide anything. I say so because, from Shirur mutt case it has evolved, State unless it is a secular activity should not involve in religious practises.

Tags:    

Similar News