Justice Dhulia : It depends of the perception of the teacher. Teacher may also say, this is an opportunity, look at diverse country, be culturally sensitive, that can also be an exercise.
Venkataramani : School must be free from all these elements without slightest distractions.
Justice Dhulia : What is the teacher's point of you?
Venkataramani : I want a free atmosphere without any wall of separation.
J Dhulia : Hijab creates a wall of separation?
V : Any religious symbol.
Justice Dhulia : Your argument is you have the fundamental right of expression outside school and once you are in the school the rights get shrinked?
Venkataramani : And different shape they take.
Venkataramani : I am standing here for a teacher. In a school, the trasnmission of knowledge should happen between the teacher and the student without any separation or walls. School is a very unique public space and public order derives a different connotation there.
Justice Gupta : Rights they are claiming under Part 3. They claim a primary right under Article 25, right under Article 19, ..and that the restrictions do not come under 19(2) and wearing of hijab is permissible.
Venkataramani : The varied constitution provisions which are invoked in the case, are they really invocable. If I have an Art 25 right, will it be an Art 19 problem? Clarity required for making a constituional claim.
Venkataramani : The contours of freedom of expression has a certain front. If right to religion covers it, you don't have to latch on to right to freedom of expression.
Justice Dhulia : Mr.Venkataramani, can you make it simpler?
Venkataramani : Rights are exercised in their respective domains. If one right is projected onto another, it can become problematic. Dividing line can be thin. Court will be clear in finding where excactly the claim will fit in.