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:
"Today, what is it that stops the state from permitting me to exercise religious freedom. They say public order," says lawyer representing students.
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."
"The question is where is that law on the basis of which the headscarf is prohibited," asks the lawyer respresenting students.
"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.
This is a case where students have been wearing headscarf for years together, says the lawyer representing students.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
Students 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.
Prohibitory 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.