Hijab Ban- Karnataka High Court Full Bench Hearing (Day 10)- LIVE UPDATES

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

24 Feb 2022 2:21 PM IST

  • Hijab Ban- Karnataka High Court Full Bench Hearing (Day 10)- 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 Monday, Chief Justice sought a clarification from the State regarding its stand on banning hijab....

    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 Monday, Chief Justice sought a clarification from the State regarding its stand on banning hijab. This arose in view of the AG's submission that the Government Order dated February 5, which has been challenged in the writ petitions, does not prescribe any ban on hijab and that it is only an "innocuous" order which asks students to follow the uniforms prescribed by their institutions.

    "What is your stand? Whether hijab can be permitted in institutions or not?", the Chief Justice raised a pointed query.

    "The operative portion of the GO leaves it to the institutions", the AG submitted.

    "If institutions permit hijab, you have objections?", the CJ asked further

    "If the institutions are to permit, we would possibly take a decision as and when the issue arises...", the AG responded.

    "You have to take a stand", the CJI reiterated.

    "My answer is that we have not prescribed anything. The Order , it gives complete autonomy to institution to decide uniform. Whether students be allowed to wear dress or apprarel which could be symbol of religion, the stand of the state is.. element of introducing religious dress should not be there in uniform. As a matter of principle, the answer is in preamble of Karnataka Education Act which is to foster secular environment", the AG replied.

    AG argued that petitioners have not shown that wearing hijab is an essential religious practice in Islam and thus, the protection under Article 25 of the Constitution is not available to them.

    Yesterday, the High Court clarified that the interim order passed by it on February 10, which prohibited wearing of religious dresses by students in classrooms, will apply to both degree colleges and Pre-University (PU) Colleges, where uniform has been prescribed.

    The Court also clarified that its order applies only to students and not teachers.

    FOLLOW THE LIVE UPDATES HERE

    Live Updates

    • 24 Feb 2022 2:59 PM IST

      Sr Adv Devadutt Kamat seeks time for rejoinder. He seeks one hour time.

      CJ : Mr.Kamat, it will be better if we hear all the petitioners first.

    • 24 Feb 2022 2:58 PM IST

      Krishnakumar: One last aspect milords, the regulation (impugned GO) in question will have to be also understood in the light of the fact that it is not intended to interfere religion perse. It is only related to education.

      Concludes.

    • 24 Feb 2022 2:55 PM IST

      Krishankumar: There was reliance on Article 19 (1) (a), there can be speech and non speech components to the article. This activity can be regulated by non-speech component. There can be regulation of non-speech activity. Bennet Coleman case recognises this.

    • 24 Feb 2022 2:53 PM IST

      Krishnakumar: The purpose of prescription of dress code is to bring about equalisation and equality in a common platform. The Act recognises this and allows Schemes for such purposes.

    • 24 Feb 2022 2:52 PM IST

      Krishnakumar: A third aspect I want to highlight is that scheme of the Education Act. Petitioners have said uniform cannot be prescribed. Please refer to Section 7.

    • 24 Feb 2022 2:52 PM IST

      Krishnakumar: AG had placed some portions of Quran, which are in contrary to petitioners claim. The regulations are dealing with activities of petitioners which are not religious, but an activity which is secular-education

    • 24 Feb 2022 2:49 PM IST

      Counsel refers to SC's decision in AgamaSastra case     https://indiankanoon.org/doc/143215272/

      "Performance of such tasks is not enjoined in the court by virtue of any ecclesiastical jurisdiction conferred on it but in view of its role as the Constitutional arbiter"

      CJ : This is what we're doing.

    • 24 Feb 2022 2:44 PM IST

      Krishnakumar : The nature of jurisdiction exercise by a Constitutional Court is not an eccelsiastical jurisdiction. It is only due to Constitutional necessity that the Court gets into it. And there are limitations for the Court in doing that.

    • 24 Feb 2022 2:43 PM IST

      Krishnakumar: Second aspect I want to highlight is the nature of jurisdiction exercised by constitutional courts in such matters. Grievance of petitioners is premised on that the wearing of attire in question is part of essential religious practice protected by Art 25.

    • 24 Feb 2022 2:42 PM IST

      Kirshnalumar: The regulation brought in would have to be tested on the anvil of object of non-discriminatory treatment of students pursuing secular education in a secular space.

    Next Story