Keep all emotions aside. We will go by what constitution says. Constitution is above Bhagwad Geeta for me. I will go by the oath I have taken to the Constitution: Justice Krishna S Dixit.
State says it has not intervened in the matter.
"We have given autonomy to the College Development Committees to decide the uniform and the students will abide by it," Advocate General
Senior Counsel Devadatt Kamat says State's stand is not that innocuous. That is why they are opposing the petition.
Advocate General says if students want relaxation, they should approach the College Development Committee for the same.
Kamat pointing towards a government order. The same is now being read out in Kannada.
Kamat says his Kannada is not very great (he practices in Supreme Court)
Bench says "Kannada is one of the most beautiful languages".
Advocate Tahir starts to read out the GO which is in Kannada.
Wearing of head scarf (not burqa or veil) is an essential part of Islamic religion: Sr Adv. Devadatt Kamat
It is an essential religious practice as prescribed by holy Quran. All the decisions cited by them - Madras, Bombay and Kerala - don't deal with this issue at all: Kamat
My second submissions is wearing of hijab is protected by right to expression under Article 19(1)(a) and can be restricted only on grounds under Article 19(6): Kamat
It is not correct for a woman after she starts menstruating to show her hands and face to strangers: Kamat referring to hadith mentioned in the Kerala HC judgment.
This is because the Kerala HC decision was not in the context of wearing hijab in a govt institution but it dealt with such right in a private Christian institution: Kamat
Advocate Kaleeswaram Raj seeks intervention; says he has written on certain aspects relating to essential religious practice especially in relation to Sikh practices.
If the Court feels his inputs might be useful, he might be permitted 15 mins to argue, Raj submits.
Kamat reading out Kerala High Court judgment on hijab ban in a Christian institution.
That was a different case since minority right to establish and administer educational institutions under Article 30 was given primacy: Kamat
That decision is totally inapplicable in this case since that decision was in the context of private minority institution and not a govt institution: Kamat
State can say 'public order' with respect to any religious practice. Every religious practice can be stopped by State citing public order if they want to. The Court has to separate wheat from the chaff: Kamat.
Merely saying law and order will be disturbed is not sufficient. We have been quietly practicing our faith, wearing a headscarf and coming to college. To give it the colour of public order, this is an attempt to put the cart before the horse: Kamat
The State should take action to facilitate exercise of fundamental rights and not in derogation of the same. If goons are creating disturbance, State has to ensure that the girls can exercise their right: Kamat
"AG vociferously refuted submission of Mr. Kamat on the segregation of students. He (AG) stated that such baseless statements should not be made which could have dangerous consequences in a sensitive society like ours."
Kamat cites a verdict which says what dress to wear is part of right to privacy.
Bench: Can my brother judges not wear judges attire tomorrow?
Kamat: There can be a law. BCI can tomorrow lay down a law which is in consonance with the Constitution. I am conceding that.
There were guidelines issued by Education Department which specifically say colleges should not insist on uniforms: Kamat
Guidelines might not help you: Bench
I am not saying guidelines will trump the GO. I am only saying it to show what the policy was: Kamat
1. Wearing hijab is essential practice of Islam; 2. Ground of public order will not pass constitutional muster; 3. There is positive duty on State to maintain public order; it failed and then it cannot tells citizens don't exercise Article 25 rights
Kamat says considering that exams are approaching, and in view of the fact that petitioners have been exercising their rights since last 2 years, they be granted interim relief by allowing them to attend classes for now.
When I was studying, these kind of things did not happen: Justice Krishna Dixit
"I believe all people are good people except few... I request all people...." Justice Krishna S Dixit.
Court dictating order: Having heard counsel for the parties and pending further hearing of matter, this court requests the student community and the public at large to maintain peace and tranquility.
This court has full faith in the wisdom and virtue of public at large and hope the same would be put to practice.
Hearing ends for the day, to resume at 2.30 pm tomorrow.
It is not correct for a woman after she starts menstruating, to show any part of her body except hands and face to strangers: Kamat referring to hadith mentioned in the Kerala HC judgment.
The error in earlier tweet is regretted.
[Hijab Ban] Educational institution not a place to profess any religion: Karnataka government to Karnataka High Court
Justice Kaul: so many courts have already noted that Forensic labs are lacking in numbers. You are a premier investigative agency and this is the condition.
Justice Kaul to ASG SV Raju: Also i dont want to recieve whatsapp messages concerning the case. Some one sneaks into my groups and leaves messages. We don't want to get into all of this.
Raju: I am a also a victim of this. Even I recieve such messages
#SupremeCourt notes that there are 19 cases where the accused has either passed away with appeals pending against their conviction or had already fulfilled their complete term of imprisonment
#SupremeCourt is hearing a plea regarding a challenge to the upper-age limit for the NEET exam. The plea challenges the upper-age limit of 25 years for general category and 30 years for the SC/ST category candidates appearing in #NEET
Adv Gaurav Sharma appears for the respondent: the requirement if two year continuous study of 11th and 12th was always there
Sharma: The affidavits filed by the petitioners clearly show that they were aware of 11th and 12th class. In the present case students passed 12th but did not clear 11th
#SupremeCourt to hear an appeal by @amazon against a January 5 Division bench order of Delhi HC staying arbitration proceedings initiated by Amazon before a Singapore tribunal even when the tribunal proceedings were underway
Staying arbitration proceedings, the Division Bench stated there is a “prima facie case” in favour of the Future group companies in view of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) suspending its clearance given to Amazon’s 2019 deal with Future Coupons (FCPL) #AmazonvsFuture
CJI NV Ramana: sorry to say that papers have highlighted my observations. But future also wants to drag the matter. Anyways issue notice and list it next week #AmazonVsFuture
Sr Adv Nakul Dewan mentions the Amazon Future dispute
Dewan: We just wish to file the written submissions.
CJI NV Ramana: if you want to complicate, drag on and continue this type of litigation. Orders are reserved and now you file and other side will reply #SupremeCourt
CJI: I don't understand what is the practice. If that day you mentioned then it was fine. Now ask other party if they are fine with other side. We can't pass orders behind their back
Sr Adv KV Vishwanathan: This is a tactic to delay. I am opposing this.
Dewan appears for Amazon: We just need to crystallise the submissions of Sr Adv Gopal Subramaniam
CJI: If you think we cannot understand oral submissions. Then okay file. You so file Mr Vishwanathan