Karnataka Hijab Ban-Karnataka High Court Hearing -LIVE UPDATES

Kamat quotes from the Madras HC judgment : "It is, thus, seen from the reported material that there is almost unanimity amongst Muslim scholars that purdah is not essential but covering of head by scarf is obligatory".

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/763216/

Kamat refers to this judgment of Madras High Court (M.Ajmal Khan vs The Election Commission Of India).

Kamat says that this decision holds that headscarf is an essential part of the religion.

Kamat refers to another Madras High Court judgment which dealt with the issue of whether Muslim women clad in purdahs/burqas could be photographed for electoral roll.

Kamat : GO says that the judgments give credence to hold that #hijab is not a fundamental right. But this does not follow from the judgments of Kerala, Madras and Bombay High Courts.

It was a DB judgment of the Madras High Court.

Kamat: Third decision cited in GO has nothing to do with Article 25. Teachers were prescribed a dress code. It was a question whether teachers can be required to wear a particular dress code. There was no Article 25 issue or #hijab involved there.

Justice Dixit points out the last paragraph of the judgment which says that the girl had been attending the school without wearing head scarf after the Principal's direction.

Kamat replies that this has not influenced the ratio of the decision.

Justice Kamat notes the argument: The institution in question was an exclusive girls school....(connection of the bench lost).

Kamat says that this decision was in the context of an exclusively girl school. The Court held that it was not mandatory for a Muslim girl to cover her head while studying in an all-girls school.

Kamat refers to the third decision mention in the GO.

"Fatheema Hussain Sayed" case of Bombay HC (2003).