Karnataka Hijab Ban-Karnataka High Court Hearing -LIVE UPDATES

Kamat : Holy Quran followed by the Hadith is the hierarchy.

Justice Dixit : Where holy scriptures are cited, the court should verify which is the authentic scripture and then proceed. This is stated in Mulla's book on Islamic law.

Justice Dixit : Mr Devdatt, which sura should I refer to?

Kamat : Page 9 of my petition. I have quoted it.

Advocate General says that there are many translations of Quran and he may have to refer to the copy of give his final word.

Justice Dixit says the copy of Quran is published by Shantiprakashana Publishers of Bangalore. Advocates agree that it is the authentic copy of Quran which can be acted upon.

The bench starts hearing the first proposition if head scarf if essential practice.

Justice Dixit calls for a copy of Holy Quran from Library. Judge shows the copy to the advocates.

"Anybody disputes if this is the authentic copy of Quran?", Justice Dixit asks.

The bench starts hearing the first proposition if head scarf if essential practice.

Justice Dixit calls for a copy of Holy Quran from Library. Judge shows the copy to the advocates.

"Anybody disputes if this is the authentic copy of Quran?", Justice Dixit asks.

Justice Dixit notes the next proposition : Right to wear falls within the privacy right recognised by Puttaswwmy jurisprudence, and therefore the impugned order not taking cognisance of this is not right.

The next proposition advanced by Kamat is that the State has no competence to issue the GO on dress code as per the Karnataka Education Rules. The GO is beyond the jurisdiction of the state.

Justice Dixit notes it.

Kamat : : This violates even Article 21 as SC has said under Puttasawamy judgement that right to wear falls within privacy right.

Justice Dixit notes the proposition of Kamat : HC; The grounds on which the impugned order has been structured are not relatable to those permitted under Article 19 (2)

Justice Dixit notes the second proposition: The wearing of #hijab partakes the character of right to expression under Article 19(1)(a) and the restriction can be levied only under Article 19(2) as held by the Supreme Court.