Hijab Ban- Karnataka High Court Full Bench Hearing(Day 6)- LIVE UPDATES

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

18 Feb 2022 2:24 PM IST

  • Hijab Ban- Karnataka High Court Full Bench Hearing(Day 6)- LIVE UPDATES

    Karnataka High Court Full Bench will continue hearing on a batch of petitions challenging the hijab ban in educational institutions.The matter is before a bench comprising Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice JM Khazi will hear the petitions today at 2.30 PM.On Friday the Court requested the State to re-open the educational institutions at the earliest and...

    Karnataka High Court Full Bench will continue hearing on a batch of petitions challenging the hijab ban in educational institutions.

    The matter is before a bench comprising Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice JM Khazi will hear the petitions today at 2.30 PM.

    On Friday the Court requested the State to re-open the educational institutions at the earliest and has restrained students from wearing any sort of religious clothes in classrooms, regardless of their faith, while the matter is pending hearing.

    Senior advocate Devadatt Kamat appearing on behalf of aggrieved students made extensive arguments on Monday. It is the petitioner's case that the right to wear hijab is an essential religious practice under Islam, and the State is not empowered to interfere with such rights under Articles 14,19 and 25 of the Constitution.

    Kamat had underscored that the declaration made by the State government that wearing of a headscarf is not protected by Article 25 of the Constitution was "totally erroneous'. It was also submitted that the conduct of the State government in delegating to the College Development Committee (CDC) to decide whether to allow headscarves or not is 'totally illegal'.

    On Wednesday Prof Ravivarma Kumar, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners today argued that the state is discriminating against Muslim girls, solely on the basis of their religion. He highlighted that the Government Order dated February 5 targets wearing of hijab whereas other religious symbols are not taken into account. This leads to hostile discrimination violating Article 15 of the Constitution.

    Sr Adv Yusuf Muchhala argued that the impugned GO, preventing Muslim girls from wearing headscarves, suffers from manifest arbitrariness. He referred to the principle of manifest arbitrariness used by the Supreme Court to strike down triple talaq in the Shayra Bano case.

    "They are only putting one apron over their head. When we say uniform, we cannot strictly confine to the dress code. What was the practice adopted at school has to be seen. It has been changed without notice. Fairness requires notice. Fairness requires being heard."

    Advocate General will start his arguments for State of Karnataka Today

    FOLLOW THE LIVE UPDATES HERE

    Live Updates

    • 18 Feb 2022 4:02 PM IST

      AG refers to Section 133(2) of the Education Act giving residuary powers to State.

      "Private colleges have a managing committee. In PU colleges run by govt, there is no managing committee".

    • 18 Feb 2022 3:59 PM IST

      AG: Since we are addressing the issue of College Development Committee, interestingly, for a Govt PU college there is no concept of managing committee.

    • 18 Feb 2022 3:57 PM IST

      AG : The act it is applicable to all institutions except ICSE, CBSE institutions.

      Reads section 2 (14) of the act. AG: Section 38 of the Act takes care of Govt PU colleges.

    • 18 Feb 2022 3:54 PM IST

      AG now responding to the argument of Ravivarma Kumar that College Development Committee is not an authority recognized by the Education Act.

      AG reads the Preamble to the Education Act- The act is for betterment of the student community.

    • 18 Feb 2022 3:53 PM IST

      AG : I don't know what is the mind of the Govt regarding the high-level committee.

      CJ : Was the GO premature? Because on one hand you say a high level committee is examining the issue & on the other hand you say this? Whether this will not amount to contradictory stand by State?

    • 18 Feb 2022 3:52 PM IST

      CJ: You have also said that state is yet to take decision with respect to uniform?

      AG : Yes.

      Justice Dixit: At least you should have stated that we have decided to constitute a committee. But that you have not said.

    • 18 Feb 2022 3:50 PM IST

      Justice Dixit refers to Supreme Court judgments which says that an order has to be understood on the basis of what is stated in it and subsequent pleadings cannot improve it.

    • 18 Feb 2022 3:50 PM IST

      AG : In CPC, there is no provision to file appeal against a finding. If the operative order is in one's favour, there is no scope for challenging the findings.

    • 18 Feb 2022 3:49 PM IST

      AG: Post facto this order, there is nothing on record that look state has told us so we (institute) are passing this order.

      AG says the GO has to be understood for what it ultimately directs and it is wrong on the part of the petitioners to say it is communal.

    • 18 Feb 2022 3:48 PM IST

      CJ : We wanted to know the necessity of mentioning these judgements and recording your conclusion and then passing the GO?

      AG : On a better advise, these could have been avoided. But that stage has passed.

      CJ: It seems they do not take your advice.

      AG smiles.

    Next Story