Hijab Ban- Karnataka High Court Full Bench Hearing (Day 11)- LIVE UPDATES

Kumar : Kindly test the validity of this exercise on test laid down by the SC. There is no control over the MLA, he acts like a monarch in the college. Can the Principal question him? The MLA should be held accountable.

Kumar: The issue of entrusting MLA with executive function is not res-judicata.

Kumar refers to Supreme Court judgment in Bhim Singh cases which upheld MPLADs. He says SC upheld it as MPs only had recommendatory powers.

Kumar : Absolute power is given to the MLA. The college is given on a platter to the MLA, who is a political man.Principal is only there to implement decision of MLA.

Kumar: Other thing Mr Poovayya has out that Local MLA sharing power conferred is not contrary consitutionally. Kindly see the composition of CDC. President will be local MLA, Nominee no 1, is Vice President who is local rep of MLA. Four nominees of members.

Justice Dixit says bench is not satisfied with the AG's statement that the circular delegating power to CDC can be traced from the removal of difficulties clause.

Justice Dixit: We are not convinced at all so argue something else.

Sr Adv Professor Ravivarma Kumar now makes rejoinder.

"AG has sought to say that order of delegating power to CDC is not to be derived from any specific provisions, but he said it could be derived from removal of difficulties clause".

Mucchala : AG had stated that what is stated in Quran is not obligatory has been contradicted in Shayra Bano case.  Whatever is stated in Quran, Hadith & Ima must be obeyed. Thats all.

Mucchala : Here, the faith and belief is that she should dress in conjunction with what is stated in Quran and wear hijab. Lordships should respect that.

"..it is inappropriate for this Court to enter upon an area of theology and to assume the role of an interpreter of the Hadees. The true test is whether those who believe and worship have faith in the religious efficacy" - Muchhala quotes this passage from Ayodhya judgment.

Mucchala refers to the observations in Ayodhya case that the Court should be cautious not to enter into theological discussions and should only see if the faith and the belief of the worshipper is genuinely held.