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 3:46 PM IST

      AG: This issue we have left it to the complete autonomy of institutions. I cannot improvise beyond what is said in GO. If this gives an indication to the institutions, of course it is something the institutions must understand.

    • 18 Feb 2022 3:45 PM IST

      CJ: What was the necessity of mentioning the judgements in the GO?

      Justice Dixit : Let us understand the purport of the order. Whether the colleges or schools, can they ignore (the judgements mentioned in the order) and prescribe?

    • 18 Feb 2022 3:45 PM IST

      AG: Conscious stand of the state is that we do not want to intervene in religious matter. We could have said hijab was against secularism and order and could have said it is not permissible. We have not. It is a stated stand of the state we did not want to intervene.

    • 18 Feb 2022 3:42 PM IST

      Justice Dixit : You have not articulated properly that wearing of hijab is not prohibited. But these orders are meant for common people, teachers, students members of CDC, how will they interpret it?

    • 18 Feb 2022 3:42 PM IST

      AG : If a CDC permits wearing of hijab, under Education Act Section 131 we have revisional powers, and if there is objection, state can decide. As of now in the order we have given autonomy to the CDC.

    • 18 Feb 2022 3:41 PM IST

      AG: State is very conscious, we have kept away from it and we have given autonomy to CDC.

      CJ: Meaning thereby that CDC if they allow wearing hijab, you have no objection to it?

    • 18 Feb 2022 3:40 PM IST

      CJ: If we accept your arguments that the order is innocuous ..where was the necessity to say all these things?

    • 18 Feb 2022 3:40 PM IST

      Chief Justice : What we want to know is...what was the necessity of this GO? You say the GO is innocuous. But you say banning hijab will not violate Article 25. What was the necessity of saying all that?

    • 18 Feb 2022 3:38 PM IST

      AG says there is no issue of hijab in the Govt Order.

      "I have read this ten times. I have not found unless they want to add words".

    • 18 Feb 2022 3:37 PM IST

      AG refers to the last portion of the order which refers to clothes being in consonance with unity & equality.

      "Here the draftsman went a bit enthusiastic. What was meant was, in case no uniform is prescribed, please wear decent clothes. I agree it could have been worded better"

    Next Story