Justice Dixit : In the case of Sikhs, Guru Grant Sahib prescribes five essential 'K's. And the Courts have held that they are essential religious practices. It has been held by courts in Canada and USA also.
Kamat : We are GSB brahmins and we wear a naman and go to school. Can the school says it affects public order? Or a Sikh who is wearing a turban, can the state say it affects public order?
Kamat : Every practise of religion if the state wants can give the colour of public order.
Kamat : We are not trying to incite anybody or create disturbance. Right from admission we have been quietly practicing our faith. Now to give a colour of public order this is an attempt to put the cart before the horse.
Kamat : Personally speaking, I may disagree. Why should children wear head scarf? But my view is irrelevant and inconsequential, my lordships have said it is the belief of the community and as long as that belief is there we cannot sit over judgement.
Kamat refers to Ratilal judgment and says secular views have no bearing in determining the faith of a community.
Kamath: The facts of the cases are similar. The students here were wearing head scarf since admission, without bothering anyone, till somebody thought it was violative of something.
Kamat says that in the Bijoe Emmanuel case, the students respectfully stood up when national anthem was played but did not sing owing to their faith.
Kamat : There are judgements from Karnataka also, like, Shirur Mutt. These states seems to be the bastion of Constitutional Law.
Kamat refers to Bijoe Emmanuel vs State of Kerala.
Justice Dixit : Much of these laws seems to be flowing from Kerala. Kesavananda, Bijoe Emmanuel..