Alam refers to the concept of "Unconstitutional stipulation" discussed in St.Xavier case -
Alam : On one end there is my right to education, on the other end, there is my right to privacy, right to dignity, right to culture. The State GO says, I will give you education provided you surrender your right to privacy. Can it be done? The answer is an emphatic NO.
Alam refers to Olga Tellis : Fundamental rights are not conferred to benefit the individuals but to secure the larger interests. So no individual can barter away the fundamental rights. Such a barter if enforced will defeat the purpose of the Constitution.
Justice Dhulia : What is the barter of rights you are talking about here?
Alam : In 92 Mohini Jain case, right to education was held as fundamental right, repeated in Unnikrishnan. In Puttaswamy case, it was held a socio-economic rights.
Alam : State can't say I will give you aid on condition that you will surrender your Article 30 rights. This was the judgment in St.Xaviers case.
Alam : There is a no concept of barter of fundamental rights in our Constitution. If there is any violation of any fundamental right by the effect of the GO, it is that effect which the Court will look at, not the intent of the GO.
Alam refers to Justice Mathew's decision in St.Xavier's judgment - If the State is extending you a privilege, state cannot exact a barter from you on a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution.
Alam quotes from Puttaswamy judgment - Fundamental rights do not flee from a person the moment he is sent to a prison- there is shrinkage.
Alam quotes from Puttaswamy judgment - Privacy attaches to the person and it is not lost merely because a person is in a public place - This is how I take my privacy to the school.
Alam : The extent to which an individual chooses to cover his or her body to feel secure from public gaze is a matter of personal choice. After Navtej Johar, Puttaswamy, the rights are so wide, there is no hierarchical difference between enumarated and non-enumerated rights
Alam : The High Court makes a mistake by saying these are unenumerated rights and are less protected. That takes us back several years before Puttaswamy decision.
Alam : Justice Gupta asked the question where is the right to wear hijab in school. In Puttaswamy judgment, privacy judgment, there is a nice line on that. It says privacy attaches to a person, not to a place.
Alam : Even a prisoner has fundamental rights, they are not left at the prison gate. The concept which I discovered was, there is a shrinkage of rights, not surrender.
Alam : Hijab is a matter of person identity, it is linked to a person's dignity.