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

Kamat : These are constitutional issues which your lordships may have to consider under Article 145(3). There is no direct judgment. There are issues like what is religion, what is conscience, difference between freedom of religion and conscience.

Kamat : Article 25 only protects innocent bonafide practice of religion. Wearing a namam, yes, wearing a hijab yes. Wearing of orange shawl is not a bona fide practice.

Kamat : Whether uniformity in public space is a ground to restrict Article 25? Whether a Muslim girl wearing a head scarf is an affront to discipline? Article 25 does not recognize this ground of uniformity or discipline.

Kamat : The argument of the State is I wear hijab, other students will wear orange shawl. Wearing of orange shawl is not a genuine religious belief. It is a belligerent display of religion, that if you wear this, I will wear this.

Kamat : HC refers to the power of the State to frame a scheme to restrict practices derogatory to women. Where does it say hijab is derogatory to women?

Kamat refers to a judgment to say restriction on fundamental right on ground of public order must have direct and proximate link with public order and cannot be indirect or inferential.

Kamat : Every restriction must be direct and proximate. Otherwise State can infer restrictions which the High Court has approved in this case.

Kamat : Then Section 7 of the Act. A scheme to promote harmony which the State can make under Section 7 is construed as a restriction on wearing hijab

Kamat : According to the State, the Preamble(to the Education Act) is a restriction.

Kamat : High Court says the objective of promoting secular outlook mentioned in the Preamble to the Act is a restriction. I am at pains to understand how can this be a restriction.

Kamat : The High Court says the Act is "as clear as Gangetic waters". I submit it is totally muddied.

Kamat. : The question which arises for your lordships is which is this great law which provides for social reform. None. Look at the preamble of Education Act, Section 7, Rule 11, none of the framers of the law ever thought this will be put to restrict right under Art 25

Kamat : Any restriction on right must be direct and proximate, not indirect or inferential.

Kamat comes to the second part of Article 25- The state can make a law for social reform in a religion.

Kamat - State is pitching on Education Act.

Kamat comes to second part of Article 25- State can make a law for social reform in a religion.

Kamat - State is pitching on Education Act.