Ahmadi : Why should someone get provoked if someone wears hijab and goes to school? Why should another student should have a problem? If it provokes, you have to adress that, otherwise you are allowing someone to be bullied. You hardly want that to happen in campus.
Ahmadi : Why should someone feel that someone's religious observances obstruct secular education or unity?
Ahmadi : Legitimate state interest is to encourage diversity, not to have standardisation of all practices.
Justice Dhulia : The HC judgment also says the GO could have been better worded.
Ahmadi : There is a common thread which runs through the GO, that uniformity in terms of dress, uniformity in terms of thoughts, that is sought to be the legitimiate state interest.
Ahmadi quotes portions from GO which state that students carrying religious observances is an obstacle to unity.
Justice Dhulia : When they wrote the GO, they may not have been aware that it would be put to this scrutiny. Perhaps they mean peace should be maintained.
Ahmadi : The impugned GO misunderstand the concept of fraternity and confuses the same as the anti-thesis of diversity.
Ahmadi quotes from the GO - Karnataka Education Act mandates students should behave in fraternal manner, transcend their group identity.
"Transcending group identity" is not synonymous with Fraternity at all - Ahmadi adds.
Justice Gupta asks whose judgment in Indira Sawhney case contains the said quote.
Ahmadi : Justice Sawant.
J Gupta : So minority view.
Justice Dhulia : Only in some of the aspects.
Ahmadi : Just on few issues.
J Gupta : Its alright, its more of an academic issue.
Ahmadi : Indira Sawhney judgment has read fraternity in the context of eliminating social inequality.
Ahmadi referring to passages on fraternity from the judgment reported as (2016) 7 SCC 221. He says Dr.Ambedkar's speech is reproduced in the judgment
Ahmadi : The idea of fraternity is recognised as a constitutional value to be cultivated as part of their social behaviour.