"The admirable purposes that uniforms serve do not seem to be undermined by granting religious and cultural exemptions," Kamat quotes from the SA judgment.
Drawing parallels from SA judgment, Kamat argues the Hijabcase is also not about uniforms and not even exemptions to uniforms but an additional cloth over the uniform.
Kamat refers to SA judgment : "..this case is not about uniforms, but about exemptions to existing uniforms".
Kamat refers to SA judgment. The Court considered the question "whether, considering the importance of the stud on Sunali, allowing her to wear the stud would impose too great a burden on the School".
Kamat continues referring to SA judgment : If Sonali says nose-stud is central to her South Indian Hindu culture, then the Court cannot say it is not, because outside authorities cannot decide.
Kamat : School submitted that infringement of Sunali's right was slight as she can wear nose stud outside. The Chief Justice did not agree saying that the removal for a short time will send a symbolic message that Sonali and her religion and culture are not welcome.
Kamat reads judgment : Evidence shows that the nose stud is not a mandatory tenet of Sunali’s religion or culture; But the evidence does confirm that the nose stud is a voluntary expression of South Indian Tamil Hindu culture, a culture that is intertwined with Hindu religion.
The full judgment of the South African court cited by Kamat may be read here:
Kamat : Your Lordships are very well aware of our scriptures. Our Vedas, Upanishads. The central theme is that we are not islands. The same finds echo in the South African judgment.
Kamat : Will heavens fall if you don't wear Hijab for few hours in school? They ask. Similar was the argument of the school in the South African case against the Hindu girl wearing nose ring.