Justice Dixit : ...was considered and hence the rights that availed to individuals under Article 25 were treated as subservient to rights under Articles 29 and 30. That being so the impugned order could not have drawn premise from this decision.
Justice Dixit notes : Kamat draws attention to another Kerala HC judgment and submits that in a case involving competing rights of two entities, one the students and the other the minority institution, it is a case of Article 29 vs 30, a doctrine of assimilation of rights.
Kamat: This case was in the context of a private minority institution and does not support the State at all.
Justice Dixit: Just hold, I will make few notes.
Kamat says that it was the right of the minority management to manage the institution which was given primacy in that case over the individual right of the student.
Justice Dixit : So it was a case where two fundamental rights were competing?
Kamat : Yes, and Article 30 was given primacy. Article 30 has been given a very high pedestal and prevailed over Article 25 right of a student.
Kamat: The contours of fundamental rights in a minority institution are different from those in a government institution.
Justice Dixit : Any authority for this?
Kamat: Yes, Article 30 gives minority institutions certain rights.
Kamat referring to the 2018 judgment of Kerala HC delivered by Justice Muhamed Mustaque which did not allow head scarves in a private school.
Kamat highlights it was a Christian management school and hence the considerations are different.
Advocate : As people quit, many new get joined.
AAG informs that AG has joined.
Justice Dixit : Let us start our journey again.
The Zoom session has 500 participants.
Justice Dixit : Some of you may quit so that the learned Advocate General can join.
Hearing commences.
One lawyer says AG is not able to join the session as the number of participants in the Zoom meeting has exceeded the limit. Request made for removing unnecessary participants.