Hijab Ban- Supreme Court Hearing- DAY-10 Live Updates

 Supreme Court concludes hearing in the Hijab case. Reserves judgment.

Hegde : The only power they are showing is Rule 11..

J Gupta : Mr.Hegde we have understood your submissions. Now our homework starts.

Hegde : So the question of essential religious practice, was it essential to be decided? It was no essential. It could have been decided on narrow grounds. Do you ave the power? Has the power been exercised just and reasonable? 

Kamat concludes. Sr Adv Sanjay Hegde now making rejoinder. He cites Justice Gajendragadkar's judgment in Mirajkar case to say if an issue can be decided on narrow grounds, that course should be adopted, leaving larger issues undecided. 

Kamat : For example, I keep a photo of Krishna in my pocket. And State says you can't keep the photo of Krishna. When I challenge it, Court should asks why is the restriction and not whether I have the right to keep the photo.

Kamat : Lets take Solicitor's saffron example in reverse. A Brahmin boy wears a namam in a Muslim locality. Some students take objection and they start wearing green dress. Will the State then order don't wear namam?

Kamat : State has to cross the threshold. I am saying it is not a restriction.

J Gupta : If it is not a restriction, it does not violate your fundamental rights.

Kamat : I am saying it is not a valid restriction.

Kamat : What we have argued is, essential religious test does not arise at this stage, that first you have to show how the restriction is valid.

J Gupta : How it does not arise?

Kamat : In High Court as well, I have said essential religious practice is not necessary. See my written submissions

J Gupta : You may not have raised, but the writ petitions raised.

Kamat : The test is, whether the restriction is valid? High Court says -show your right. High Court inversed the test.

Justice Gupta : You went to the Court against the Govt Order.

Kamat : The only judgment which deal with Article 25 and 19 in the context of school discipline is Bijoe Emmanuel. High Court says it was in a different context..that it was on freedom of conscience.