Hijab Ban- Karnataka High Court Full Bench Hearing- LIVE UPDATES

Kamat : Private minority institutions cannot be foisted with students which they don't want to admit. They have Article 30 rights.

CJ referring to judgment : Issue is a private institution not a minority institution.

Kamat : I am grateful for this question. The judgment mentions it is a minority institution. Come to para..

Kamat : The judgment was in the context of a private unaided minority institutions. There was issue of balancing minority rights. The GO applies to Govt Institutions.

Kamat now refers to the judgments mentioned in the GO.

First is Kerala HC's judgment which did not allow head scarfs and long sleeves in a Christian minority school.

Kamat submits the HC referred to a Malaysian judgment.

Justice Dixit : Malaysia is a secular country or Islamic country?

Kamat : Islamic country. Our principles are much more broader. Our principles cannot be compared to Islamic Constitutions.

Kamat submits that the Madras High Court made the observation that head scarf is obligatory after referring to many sources and international judgments.

Kamat refers to Madras HC judgment in "M.Ajmal Khan vs Election Commission".

"It is, thus, seen from the reported material that there is almost unanimity amongst Muslim scholars that purdah is not essential but covering of head by scarf is obligatory," HC observed in that case.

Kamat submits that allowing hijab for Muslim students is a national level practice. Allowance for Sikhs students' head gear is also there. This is in alliance with Article 25, he adds.

Kamat mentions that even Kendriya Vidyalayas permit Hijab of same uniform colour.

"Kendriya Vidyalayas even today they permit by a notification, that even though they have a uniform, Muslim girls are permitted to wear a headscarf of the uniform colour".

Kamat : This is not a case where students are insisting for a different uniform. They are only saying they will cover the head with the same colour of the uniform that is prescribed.