The Karnataka High Court appealed to the media "to be more responsible." (File)
Amid the ongoing Hijab controversy, the Karnataka High Court on Monday resumed hearing the petition challenging the ban on Hijab in colleges.
The Karnataka High Court appealed to the media "to be more responsible."
Senior advocate Devadatt Kamat, appearing for the petitioner, submitted before Karnataka High Court that the Government Order (ban on hijab) is a non-application of mind.
The petitioners have urged the court to allow girls to attend classes in hijab and continue their education while the government argued that it would be necessary to find whether hijab is essential in Islam.
Meanwhile, high schools for up to Class 10 reopened in Karnataka on Monday while colleges are on holiday till February 16.
Here are the highlights on Hijab Row:
"What Stops State From Letting Me Exercise Religious Freedom": Petitioner
"Today, what is it that stops the state from permitting me to exercise religious freedom. They say public order," says lawyer representing students.
How The Controversy Began
Controversy over Muslim students barred from wearing the hijab began in December after six girls from Karnataka's Udupi district voiced their concerns. They then approached the High Court. Since then it has snowballed into a significant matter, with the Supreme Court also approached. However, Chief Justice of India NV Ramana said: "We will interfere only at an appropriate time."
Where Is The Law That Bans Headscarves, Asks Students' Lawyer
"The question is where is that law on the basis of which the headscarf is prohibited," asks the lawyer respresenting students.
College Panel Has No Legal Right To Decide On Hijab Question, Says Lawyer
"A College Development Committee does not have any statutory basis. It is not passed under any statute, but some executive order and it does not pass the muster to regulate public order," says the lawyer respresenting students, opposing the college panel's right to decide on the hijab question.
Students Have Been Wearing Headscarves For Years, Says Lawyer
This is a case where students have been wearing headscarf for years together, says the lawyer representing students.
Karnataka Hijab Row Hearing LIVE UpdatesReferring to the above observation in Shirur Mutt case, Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat submits that even matters of dress can form integral parts of religion.
Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat now refers to the Shirur Mutt case.
"A religion may not only lay down a code of ethical rules , it might prescribe rituals and observances, which are regarded as integral parts of religion, & these observances might extend even to matters of food and dress" - he quotes.
No outside authority has any right to say that these are not essential parts of religion and it is not open to the secular authority of the State to restrict or prohibit them under the guise of administering the trust estate: Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat quotes from Ratilal Gandhi case.
Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat: State is an outside authority, it cannot says that wearing a headscarf is essential practise or not. It has to be seen from the view point of a believer.
Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat: I as a counsel may think hijab is regressive, may think that schools should have a uniform dress. But my views do not matter. I may not agree. What matters is the view point of a believer.
Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat says the facts of "Bijoe Emmanuel" case is similar to the present case.
"Girls wearing scarf causing no harm to anybody and attending classes. If we replace the facts of this case, transpose it to this case (Bijoe emmanuel). see how it fits on all counts"
Karnataka Hijab Row Hearing LIVE UpdatesSenior Advocate Devadatt Kamat now trying to distinguish the Bombay HC judgment mentioned in the GO. The girl was studying in an all-girls school and hence the Court held hijab was not necessary.
Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat: Both judgements that GO cites do not apply in our case. One is in a minority institution the other is in an all-girls school. Third judgement is of Madras HC judgement, this has nothing to do with Article 25.
Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat says that the Madras HC judgment mentioned in the GO was with respect to Govt's power to prescribe uniform for contractual teachers and there was no discussion of Article 25 in that case.
By referring to these judgments, GO commits a "fatal error".
Karnataka Hijab Row Hearing LIVE UpdatesSenior Advocate Devadatt Kamat: The judgment was in the context of a private unaidaed minority institutions. There was issue of balancing minority rights. The GO applies to Govt Institutions.
Chief Justice referring to judgment: Issue is a private institution not a minority institution.
Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat: I am grateful for this question. The judgment mentions it is a minority institution. Come to para..
Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat: Private minority institutions cannot be foisted with students which they don't want to admit. They have Article 30 rights.
Justice Krishna S Dixit: You referred to a HC judgment which referred to an apex court of an Islamic country that wearing hijab is essential? You have any judgment of any other Islamic country or secular country taking a divergent view?
Senior Advocate Devadat Kamat says to the best of his knowledge he is not aware. "My research says there is no other contrary judgement. But I am not a final repository of knowledge".
Karnataka Hijab Row Hearing LIVE UpdatesSenior Advocate Devadatt Kamat submits the High Court referred to a Malaysian judgment?
Justice Krishna S Dixit: Malaysia is a secular country or Islamic country?
Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat : Islamic country. Our principles are much more broader. Our principles cannot be compared to Islamic Constitutions.
Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat now refers to the judgments mentioned in the GO. First is Kerala HC's judgment which did not allow head scarfs and long sleeves in a Christian minority school.
Karnataka Hijab Row Hearing LIVE Updates
Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat submits that the Madras High Court made the observation that head scarf is obligatory after referring to many sources and international judgments.
Karnataka Hijab Row Hearing LIVE UpdatesSenior Advocate Devadatt Kamat submits that allowing hijab for Muslim students is a national level practice. Allowance for Sikhs students' head gear is also there. This is in alliance with Article 25.
Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat refers to Madras HC judgment in "M.Ajmal Khan vs Election Commission".
"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", HC observed in that case.
Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat submits that the Madras High Court made the observation that head scarf is obligatory after referring to many sources and international judgments.
Karnataka Hijab Row Hearing LIVE UpdatesSenior Advocate Devadatt Kamat mentions that even Kendriya Vidyalayas permit Hijab of same uniform colour.
"Kendriya Vidyalayas even today they permit by a notification, that even though they have a uniform, Muslim girls are permitted to wear a headscarf of the uniform colour".
Karnataka Hijab Row Hearing LIVE Updates
The whole idea of Quranic injunctions and Hadiths is to reduce the rights and obligations to formulate certain standards of behaviour of individuals in his conduct in obedience to the commands of the God : Petitioners' Advocate Kamat quotes from Kerala HC judgment.
Karnataka Hijab Row Hearing LIVE Updates
Justice Krishna Dixit observes the word "law" - as used in Article 25- can be understood from Article 13(3) which mentions byelaws, notifications etc. The observation is in context of petitioners' advocate Kamat's submission that banning of hijab cannot be delegated to CDCs.
Karnataka Hijab Row Hearing LIVE Updates
Chief Justice : Article 25 starts with the words "Subject To". What does it mean?
Petitioners' Advocate Kamat : Public order is not a mere law and order disturbance. When there is a heightened sense of law and order, it will be public order.
Chief Justice: What is public order? Shed some light.
Karnataka Hijab Row Hearing LIVE Updates
Karnataka Hijab Row Hearing LIVE Updates
Karnataka High Court Full Bench started hearing on a batch of petitions challenging the hijab ban in educational institutions.The matter is being heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice JM Khazi.
Watch: Karnataka Students Told "Remove That (Hijabs)" At School GatesStudents at a government-aided school in Karnataka's Mandya district were directed to remove their hijab before entering the campus Monday, in accordance with an interim High Court order last week that said educational institutions can re-open but no religious clothing would be allowed.
Visuals shared by news agency ANI show a woman (presumably a teacher) stopping students wearing hijabs at the school gates and ordering one student to "remove that, remove that".
The video also shows some parents arguing as their children are stopped from entering the school.
Hijab Row: No Public Gatherings In Mangaluru As Karnataka Schools ReopenProhibitory orders under Section 144 of CrPC has been clamped around 200-metre radius of all the high schools within the city police commissionerate limits from Monday till February 19.
The move is part of a precautionary measure in view of the hijab controversy. The high schools are reopening on Monday after the holiday declared by the state government.