Hijab Ban- Karnataka High Court Full Bench Hearing (Day 11)- LIVE UPDATES

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

25 Feb 2022 9:10 AM GMT

  • Hijab Ban- Karnataka High Court Full Bench Hearing (Day 11)- 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.
    During one of the previous hearing, 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.
    Yesterday, Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat made his rejoinder arguments for Muslim girl students, challenging the action of a government PU college in denying their entry for wearing a hijab (headscarf). Kamat argued that people who want to wear head scarf are denied right to education on the pretext of this GO. "Their right to education which is paramount is being put on back burner. As a state you should facilitate and create an enabling atmosphere."
    Opposing State's submissions on the aspect of Constitutional Morality, Kamat added that Sabarimala and Navtej Johar judgments that were cited by the Advocate General are "pro-choice" judgments. "Constitutional morality is pro-choice. It is a restriction on state power," he said.
    Yesterday, the Court also heard Senior Advocate AM Dar for students of another college who were denied entry. It also heard Senior Advocate Guru Krishnakumar for the Respondents.
    FOLLOW THE LIVE UPDATES HERE

    Live Updates

    • 25 Feb 2022 9:37 AM GMT

      Kumar : Kindly test the validity of this exercise on test laid down by the SC. There is no control over the MLA, he acts like a monarch in the college. Can the Principal question him? The MLA should be held accountable.

    • 25 Feb 2022 9:32 AM GMT

      Kumar: The issue of entrusting MLA with executive function is not res-judicata.

      Kumar refers to Supreme Court judgment in Bhim Singh cases which upheld MPLADs. He says SC upheld it as MPs only had recommendatory powers.

    • 25 Feb 2022 9:30 AM GMT

      Kumar : Absolute power is given to the MLA. The college is given on a platter to the MLA, who is a political man.Principal is only there to implement decision of MLA.

    • 25 Feb 2022 9:30 AM GMT

      Kumar: Other thing Mr Poovayya has out that Local MLA sharing power conferred is not contrary consitutionally. Kindly see the composition of CDC. President will be local MLA, Nominee no 1, is Vice President who is local rep of MLA. Four nominees of members.

    • 25 Feb 2022 9:29 AM GMT

      Justice Dixit says bench is not satisfied with the AG's statement that the circular delegating power to CDC can be traced from the removal of difficulties clause.

      Justice Dixit: We are not convinced at all so argue something else.

    • 25 Feb 2022 9:28 AM GMT

      Sr Adv Professor Ravivarma Kumar now makes rejoinder.

      "AG has sought to say that order of delegating power to CDC is not to be derived from any specific provisions, but he said it could be derived from removal of difficulties clause".

    • 25 Feb 2022 9:27 AM GMT

      Mucchala : AG had stated that what is stated in Quran is not obligatory has been contradicted in Shayra Bano case.  Whatever is stated in Quran, Hadith & Ima must be obeyed. Thats all.

    • 25 Feb 2022 9:27 AM GMT

      Mucchala : Here, the faith and belief is that she should dress in conjunction with what is stated in Quran and wear hijab. Lordships should respect that.

    • 25 Feb 2022 9:25 AM GMT

      "..it is inappropriate for this Court to enter upon an area of theology and to assume the role of an interpreter of the Hadees. The true test is whether those who believe and worship have faith in the religious efficacy" - Muchhala quotes this passage from Ayodhya judgment.

    • 25 Feb 2022 9:23 AM GMT

      Mucchala refers to the observations in Ayodhya case that the Court should be cautious not to enter into theological discussions and should only see if the faith and the belief of the worshipper is genuinely held.

    Next Story