Hijab Ban- Karnataka High Court Full Bench Hearing (Day 8)- LIVE UPDATES

AG : The restriction on wearing hijab is not within the school, it is only within the classroom, during the class hours. The discontinuation of particular practise, does it have any change in religion.

AG : Reasonableness of uniform is not in question. This restriction of uniform is upto 17 years, in PU-II. The Education Act's preamble says formation of secular outlook as an objective.

AG refers to State Of Madras vs V.G. Row on test of reasonableness of restrictions.

AG : The independent claim of Article 19 (1) (a) cannot go with Article 25 claim.

AG: We have a law in the form of Karnataka Eduational Institutions Classification. Rule 11 can be called into question but that has not been questioned. This rule imposes upon them a reasonable restriction on wearing a particular headgear.

Justice Dixit : After the bank nationalisation case, fundamental rights are not seen as watertight compartments.

AG: The right to wear hijab as a Article 19 right can be restricted under Article 19 (2). In the present case, Rule 11 places a reasonable restriction inside the institutions. It is subject to institutional discipline.

Chief Justice : Suppose if someone want to wear it and exercise 19 (1) (a)?

AG: Our stand is that in our country there is no prohibition in wearing hijab.

Justice Dixit : What CJ is asking if they are only claiming 19(1)(a), what is your stand?

AG: Art 25 has an element of compulsion as far as dress is concerned. The consequences of a declaration of a court in ERP is that every member of the community is bound to abide. 

AG : Claiming Article 19(1)(a) right is destructive to Article 25. Article 25 right is for compulsory practice. When you assert Article 19(1)(a), it means choice.