Justice Dhulia : If we go that way, that is essential religious practice, then probably you are right.
Ahmadi : What this Court held in Sabarimala reference was it was not sure which test to apply for essential religious practice - whether the text, or whether the view of a leader or whether every religious practice will be accepted. So today we are not clear on which test
Ahmadi says he has a preliminary point regarding reference to the larger bench.
Ahmdai : Last, the point of indirect discrimination, though the circular is facially neutral.
Ahmadi : Second point, what is the legitimate state interest? The legitimate state interest is in encouraging education, especially among minors. Is it a legitimate state interest to adopt a restriction that will encourage dropouts.
Ahmdai : The Karnataka Education Act promotes inclusivity and fraternity and the circular is against the objective of the Act.
Ahmadi : The circular says it is to develop fraternity, but it is the anti-thesis of fraternity. I will develop this point.
Ahmadi raises point on fraternity.
J Gupta : This point was argued.
Ahamdi : Nobody has argued.
Justice Dhulia : Nobody has argued this point.
Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi now begins submissions.
Dhavan concludes.
Another counsel says he can clarify to the bench if there is any doubt on what is "farz".
Justice Gupta asks him to wait for his turn. "Don't be restless", J Gupta tells him.
Dhavan : In my respectful submission, there was no foundation in GO against Hijab, it is probably to target Muslims and Muslim women particularly, and it violates Article 14 and 15. This kind of targeting is not permissible in Constitution.