Hijab Ban- Supreme Court Hearing-DAY-6- Live Updates

Gonsalves : Students coming from differnet religious backgrounds, will they be not the best teachers of religion.

Gonsalves referring to Aruna Roy decision which talked about importance of teaching about different religions.

Gonsalves : What better way for children in India to learn about different religions than from their own friends who come to school, some in a turban, some in a hijab, go for Diwali, go for Christmas, go for Eid.

Gonsalves : Court must see the issue through the eyes of the minority.

Gonsalves : Constitutional morality is the ability to see an issue through the eyes of a minority. A person from the majority may not understand quickly. Our people are yet to learn. 

Gonsalves : You never tell a Sikh boy, to take off your turban. It is central to his religion. It is the same intensity and same religiosity for a Muslim girl regarding hijab.

Gonsalves : This "dress, undress" argument is unfortunate. Muslim girls are in fact undressed. They were asked to take off their hijab by the security.

Gonsalves : The answer is Constitution is a living document. What was previously not acceptable can be acceptable now. The argument is, if a turban is allowed in a school, why not the hijab?. What is the difference?

Gonsalves : It was not a case of 10 children. It was affecting the whole state.

Gonsalves : Now I want to make the argument of turban, kirpan and whether any comparison can be made with hijab. I heard the arguments earlier. That Kirpan is Constitutionally protected and tuban is statutorily protected and not the hijab.

Gonsalves : High Court says merely saying wearing of hijab is part of conscience and removing it is offensive is not sufficient. Why is it not sufficient?

Gonsalves : Then freedom of conscience is brushed aside. What evidence you want on freedom of conscience?

Justice Dhulia : It says freedom of religion and freedom of conscience are two differently thing.

Gonsalves : We have raised Supreme Court judgments on diversity. HC discards arguments saying "hollowed rhetoric and platitude". So diversity is gone. It makes fun of diversity. Says no diversity in a qualified public space.

Gonsalves : Judge makes an analogy with prisons. He says individual fundamental rights you can't assert because you are in a qualified public space. I don't see where this comes from. It is not there in Indian jurisprudence. It is a new theory.

Justice Dhulia : There is no reference there? (in HC judgment regarding theory of qualified public space).

Gonsalves : No.

Gonsalves : If a student could be asked to remove a hijab, then a lawyer can be told to remove hijab. This theory of qualified public space is very dangerous.