Dhavan : Unless we put the case in the proper perspective, that is it about hijab, we know that today there is a lot of discontent in the majority community to knock down whatever comes as a claim in name of Islam,we see in cow lynching, we see in cases filed about 500 places..
Justice Gupta : Mr.Dhavan, you will be well advised to confine to the issues of the case..
Dhavan : Aspect of discrimination is important. This case is not about simple discipline. The reason why it is important, when the case was decided, headlines were not that dress code was upheld but was hijab was struck down.
Justice Gupta : We can't go by papers write about.
Dhavan : Papers reflect what was important.
Dhavan : Aspect of discrimination is important. This case is not about simple discipline. The reason why it is important, when the case was decided, headlines were not that dress code was upheld but was hijab was struck down.
Dhavan : On essential practices, there is a difference of opinion between Kerala High Court, which holds it to be essential and the Karnataka HC. The fourth entitlement is that a person wearing hijab cannot be discriminated against on grounds of religion and sex.
Sr Adv Rajeev Dhavan commences : There are 4 entitlements. One, right to dress is part of free speech, and is subject to reasonable restrictions for public order. Second is the doctrine of privacy. Third arises out of Essential Practices Test.
Sondhi concludes.
Dushyant Dave requests if he could be accommodated tomorrow as he has a part-heard afternoon.
Justice Gupta : When everyone makes same arguments, it is a bit heavy for us.
Dave : The matter is heavy.
J Gupta allows Dave's request
Sondhi : That judgment is under challenge here and this Court has issued notice.
Sondhi : The difference between cultural rights, religious rights, personal dignity is a thinning line.
Sondhi : Since I hail from Karnataka, I can tell that the Karnataka High Court recently held that Kodavas have the right to wear fire arms and the restrictions under Arms Act will not restrict their customary rights. Court found it a cultural right.
Sondhi : The Court must put the question to the State what public order dimension arises in this case. On facts, it has been shown that students have been wearing hijab for long.
Sondhi : The burden on showing the restriction to be reasonable is on the State. Once the students show that they have a right, the burden shifts to the state to justify the restriction.
Sondhi reads out portions from Nigerian judgment which hold that nothing has been shown that wearing of Hijab will violate the fundamental rights of others and will lead to chaos or disunity.