Hijab Ban: Hearing before Karnataka High Court Full Bench [LIVE UPDATES]

A full-bench of the Karnataka High Court will hear a batch of petitions filed by female Muslim students against ban on wearing hijab by certain Karnataka colleges.The matter was being heard by single-judge Justice Krishna S Dixit who on Wednesday, referred it to a larger Bench stating that the case involves important issues.Interestingly, another petition was filed before the Supreme Court this morning and was mentioned before the Chief Justice of India NV Ramanan by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal who prayed that the case be heard by a 9-judge Bench.The Chief Justice of India NV Ramana asked the petitioners to wait and allow the High Court full bench to hear the matter.The Full Bench of the High Court comprising Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justices Krishna S Dixit and JM Khazi will hear the arguments at 2:30 PM.Read more on the State’s affidavit here.Read more about the petitions here and here.Live updates from today’s hearing below..Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde says it is his submission that while he will argue Constitutional question, there are also statutory questions and questions on rules involved in this case based on which this case can be disposed of..You will have to tell us then what are those questions and what the facts are: Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi..Hegde narrating the facts. It appears on my reading of facts that it was a small thing within a college which probably due to lack of timely administration has been allowed to go out of control..Hegde says how petitioners were wearing head scarves over their uniforms. Since September 2021 petitioners were facing discrimination, marked them absent and made them stand outside the class: Hegde reads out petition..Hegde narrates facts. My submissions is in the Karnataka Education Act there is no specific provision which deal with uniform: Hegde.Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi requests media not to report oral observations and wait for the Court order. He says please wait for order. .Hegde resumes. Uniform was more of school phenomenon during earlier days. Uniform for colleges came in much later. It all started in Tamil Nadu pvt engineering colleges. There was some feeling uniform in colleges would prevent fashion shows and all: Hegde.There are 2 sets of rules - The Karnataka Educational Institutions (Classification, Regulation, and Prescription of Curricula) Rules 1995, Rule 11. "Provision of Uniform, Clothing, Text Books etc": Hegde..These were meant for schools, refer to Rule 3 - Prescription of classes relating to Primary and Secondary Education for the purpose of clauses (25) and (32) of section 2-a) 'Primary Education' shall have classes from 1 to VII standard; with I to IV as lower primary and V to VII as upper primary; (b) 'Secondary Education' shall have classes from VIII standard to X standard; So it is not applicable for Pre-University: Hegde.There is no prescribed penalty for violation. Even if some penalty has to be imposed Your Lordships should examine whether keeping children away from classes is a proportionate penalty: Hegde..Penalties for contravention of Section 17 is largely financial. There are penalties for ragging, copying during exam etc. But because there is no provision for uniform, there is no provision for penalty for infraction of a uniform code: Hegde..Kamat says there is a Government Order based on which the State is defending its position. The petition argued by Hegde was filed before the GO was issued. .My Lordships might have to hear the GO issue first, since this petition was filed before the GO. CJ: Let Mr Hegde complete his argument, we will hear you all at length..Kamat requests court to hear on interim arrangement. Students are outside classes, they are affected..Advocate General says after hijab issue came to fore, some students came to college wearing bhagwa etc. Then State issued a GO and ordered closing down colleges for three days. .So our stand is they should as of now adhere to dress code prescribed by concerned college. We want all students to come to college and classes have to start. So my submission is the issues will be considered by court but in meanwhile education should commence: AG..Kamat: I completely agree with AG that classes have to commence. But the issue is not of uniform. The students will wear uniform. Their only stance is that they will wear headscarf of same colour as uniform. .So my argument is let them wear head scarf as they have been doing. This is not a harmful practice. These are innocuous practice. It is not like somebody else is being harmed: Kamat..The State is playing by fire. The Government Order says that the headscarf is not a part of religious practice. (Is) our fundamental rights subject to School Committees: Kamat..The State GO is not as innocuous as they claim: Kamat AG intervenes. Why is AG so anxious. I am making submission, learned AG should not interrupt me. This is a court of law. I have immense respect for learned AG but he should not interrupt: Kamat.The question of whether hijab is essential practice under Islam has to be decided: Court Yes, so the issue of interim relief has to be considered based on balance of convenience: Kamat..Hegde says it is easy for State to say they can go back to college. There are times when wisdom lies in not being maximalistic. The wisdom lies in taking a middle path till the Court decides the matter: Hegde..I am requesting the State, that irrespective of dress, food, faith, they are all our girl children. This isn't just about essential religious practice. It is a case of essential education rights: Hegde..It is my religious faith as a lawyer of this Court that the Constitution of India is supreme. There may be one article here, another there. Multiple interpretations of Articles 14, 21 may be there. But there is no question that it applies to everyone: Hegde..I do not want to add fuel to fire. This is a State which cannot afford any kind of disturbance. This is a State which contributes maximum to the Indian economy: Hegde..Leaving to to College Development Committee might not be correct. I agree with Kamat. The local MLA, CDC have their own calculus. They may not have had the benefit of working with the law for so many years: Hegde..Chairman of drafting committee Dr. Ambedkar when he was a child, was made to sit apart in school. After so many years of the Republic, I do not want any kind of separation. We are a country like no other. We are a mix of so many influences and kinds of people: Hegde..There is 1 operating principle in India - Sometimes we have to kindly adjust. Hegde quotes Bijoe Emmanuel case: "Our tradition teaches tolerance; our philosophy preaches tolerance; our constitution practices tolerance; let us not dilute it.".Hegde says he is ready to sit with AG and work out interim arrangement. Kamat agrees to it. Adv Kaleeswaram Raj also urges for an interim arrangement..Hegde continuing. The right to wear a hijab falls within right to freedom of expression, privacy and conscience: Hegde..I am of the opinion if a case can be decided based on statutory questions without deciding Constitutional issues, then it should be so decided: Hegde..Bench says that stage is over since single-judge has already said matter involves Constitutional issues and it has already come before larger bench. .Hegde refers to Jigya Yadav v. CBSE: "Identity, therefore, is an amalgam of various internal and external including acquired characteristics of an individual and name can be regarded as one of the foremost indicators of identity." ."Therefore, an individual must be in complete control of her name and law must enable her to retain as well as to exercise such control freely “for all times” Hegde referring to Jigya Yadav v. CBSE..Hegde refers to Puttaswamy judgment which relied on Maneka Gandhi case.."The freedom of certain groups of subjects to determine their appearance and apparel (such as keeping long hair and wearing a turban) are protected not as a part of the right of privacy but as a part of their religious belief," Hegde quoting from Puttaswamy..Constitutional rights cannot be left to politicians or MPs whether they are in power or out of power. Ultimately it is the Constitution which protects all citizens: Hegde..Hegde reading out Bijoe Emmanuel case and other judgments. .Hegde also referring to Amnah Bint Basheer vs Central Board Of Secondary of Kerala HC. The Court was dealing with a temporary issue of dress code during writing of exam in that case: Hegde..In the present case, this is govt. institution; belongs to every inhabitant of Karnataka, and of every citizen of India. Can you tell a set of people, you have to forsake your faith to attend it: Hegde..There are specific provisions in various Central enactments which permit covering of head. Refers to Motor Vehicles Act.The Supreme Court has made specific rules for pardanashin lady - Order 9, Rule 8: Hegde..Hegde concludes submissions. .Devadatt Kamat commences arguments for interim relief..He says he has three broad submissions: First, GO suffers from total non-application of mind. The entire basis of GO is three High Court judgments which they claim held Hijab is not part of Article 25. I will prima facie demonstrate that it is not so: Kamat..All the three decision cited by GO are totally against the State: Kamat.Bench says the State's understanding is not so. Kamat: That understanding is totally incorrect. .The GO is the foundation based on which colleges are prescribing that headscarf cannot be allowed. If the foundation goes, then rest can't stand: Kamat..Kamat refers to Fathima Tasneem v. State of Kerala which has been relied upon by GO. In that issue was of private minority educational institutions, not of government institutions: Kamat..This decision was in the context of a private minority educational institutions which has a separate fundamental right: Kamat. Private institutions are also under Constitution. Only they have some additional rights under Article 30. General law will still apply to them: Bench..Kamat now referring to Amnah Bint Basheer vs CBSE on quranic injunction..The second judgment relied upon by GO is of Bombay High Court but the same is not applicable since it deals with all girls school and not co-education schools: Kamat..The third judgment is of Madras High Court which has nothing to do with Article 25. It was about prescription of dress to teachers. It was about teachers being asked to wear uniform. Not even one word about Article 25 or wearing of headscarf in that: Kamat..We will pass an order that let the institutions start, but till the matter is pending, these students and stakeholders will not insist on wearing any religious garment or head dress. We will restrain everyone. We want peace and tranquility: Bench remarks..You people should not insist for wearing all these religious things which are not conducive: Bench. What Your Lordships are saying will amount to a suspension of Article 25 as far as students are concerned: Kamat..If you want us to decide these issues, you will have to cooperate: Bench Kamat: We are being asked to choose between food and water. We are being asked to choose between education and conscience..Kamat asks court to record his objection. We will restrain everyone (in the interim) from adopting all these practices: Bench..[BREAKING] Karnataka High Court remarks it will pass an interim order restraining everyone from wearing religious garments until the Court decides the matter (Order not passed yet). Hearing concludes for the day. Matter to be heard again on Monday next week.

Hijab Ban: Hearing before Karnataka High Court Full Bench [LIVE UPDATES]

Related Stories