Hijab Ban In Karnataka- Supreme Court Hearing- DAY-3- LIVE UPDATES

Kamat referring to judgments against Hecklers Veto. Judgment rendered in the case of mob protesting against film screening. Court held once an expert body (CBFC) has certified the film, mob can't stop it and State has to protect the exhibition.

Kamat : You(State) can't take a facile ground that public order will be violated. It is your duty to ensure an atmosphere of public order so that I can exercise my rights freely.

Kamat : School can't take that ground of public order. If I wear a head gear and someone gets offended and makes an issue and shouts slogans, police can't say I can't wear it. That will be hecklers veto. It is on this basis that the ban was imposed.

Kamat : Last day the AG said the GO was issued after some students demanded to wear saffron shawls and the ban was imposed in that context. Can hecklers veto be allowed?

Kamat : Your lordships know the Anand Margis case, where Tandav dance was prohibited.

Justice Gupta : You wearing a hijab in street may not offend anyone. But when you wear a hijab in a school, the question is what kind of public order the school wants to maintain.

Justice Gupta : You can't compare, dress in court. Last day, Mr.Dhawan mentioned pagadi. It might be an essential dress. In Rajasthan people wear pagadi. In Gujarat too.

Kamat : I can wear head gear, kara, as part of my religious belief. It may not be a core religious practice. But as long as it does not affect public order, health or morality, it can be allowed.

Kamat : Every religious practice may not be essential, but that does not mean State can keep restricting it as long as it does not fall foul of public order, morality or health.

Kamat : For example, when I wear a namam, Senior Advocate K Parasaran, he is a father like figure for us, he wears namam. Does it affect discipline or decorum in Court?

Kamat : Restriction on #hijab in school, State has not justified either on public order or morality or health. So this GO cannot be a valid restriction for the purposes of first part of Article 25.

Justice Dhulia : This argument is available to you if you are taking it as a religious practice, but yesterday you said you are not taking it?

Kamat : No, I will make it clear. This right comes from 19 and also 25. 

Kamat : State argues that if they come in head scarf, other people will get offended. That can be no reason to ban it.

Kamat : Just to recap what my argument on Article 25 is going to be. 25 has two parts. 25(1) and 25(2). 25(1) has 3 sets of restrictions - public order, morality and health and other provisions of fundamental rights chapter.

Kamat quoting from Austrian judgment : "Selective ban which forbids Islamic girls from wearing headscarf may have adverse effect on the inclusion of female students concerned and making access to education more difficult for Muslim girls and marginalizes them"

Kamat referring to Austrian decision - students belonging to Islamic faith said it was part of their decision.