Hijab Ban- Karnataka High Court Full Bench Hearing (Day 10)- LIVE UPDATES

Kamat says an amendment was moved during the Constituent Assembly Debates to say that no visible signs of religion should be displayed in public. This was expressly rejected by the framers of the Constitution. State is now trying to resurrect this. This is not permissible.

Kamat refers to Constituent Assembly Debates: What is propounded today, what is today resurrected is exactly what our constitutional framers rejected.

Kamat : Restriction must have a direct relation to the object sought to be achieved. If the object is to say that hijab a regressive practise, it has to be evident from the plain reading of the (Education) Act and the rules made thereunder.

Kamat : Education Act is not an act for reform of religion within the meaning of Article 25(2). There is no judgment which talks of an accidental infringement by an alien act. Education Act and Uniform rule cannot be a measure of social reform.

Kamat: Article 25 (1) is not a restrictive paradigm, the canpoy and width of rights is not capable of being put in a straight jacket formula. If I say there is violation, there should be first a restriction. I am saying not permitting to wear head scarf is infringement

Justice Dixit : You have come to the Court saying your rights are infringed. When we speak of restriction, it is in reference to a right which has been allegedly infringed. This is the context in which we see things.

Kamat : State has inverted the law here. ERP is not a restriction on fundamental right under 25(1). ERP is a restriction on the State's power to interfere with the religious practice. The question therefore which should fall is where is the restriction.

Kamat : If there is any case which fits in, it is Bijoe Emmanuel. The question SC asked is not to the students show me if it is the essential practice. SC did not ask the students show me your right. SC asked where is the restriction.

CJ: It is the institution which has prescribed uniform.

Kamat: The question which will fall before lordhsips is whether Education act and rules is social reform as far as Islam is concerned.

CJ: Artcle 25 (2) is reformatory power given to the state.

CJ: We want to know what right has been infringed.

Kamat: Before seeing the right, lordships will have to see there is infringement or not.

CJ : You have come to court so you have to establish the right.