The High Court had on February 10 barred students from wearing hijab, bhagwa and other religious garments in educational institutions which have a prescribed dress code/ uniform.
1. Wearing of hijab not protected by Article 25; 2. They are leaving it to College Development Committee to decide whether any exception should be made for hijab.
Kamat: Article 25 is not subject to general reasonable restrictions like in Article 19. The restrictions which can be imposed is mentioned in Article 25 itself - public order, morality, health.
There is a concept called heckler's veto.
If I am walking on street and someone heckles me, that cannot mean State can stop movement on streets saying it affects public order: Kamat.
The State has a positive duty to ensure people can exercise their fundamental rights. If certain sections of the society don't want other sections fundamental rights to play out, is no ground to restrict fundamental rights of that section: Kamat.
Whether by this GO, is there any restriction on fundamental rights: CJ Awasthi.
Before we go on to it, let us understand Article 25: CJ Awasthi.
Kamat reads out Article 25.
Aside from public order, health and morality, the State can make law restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice: Kamat
Kamat now referring to Kerala High Court judgment which was relied upon by GO. It dealt with whether hijab can be allowed for a student attending medical entrance exam.
There was lot of talk on media how I as Hindu could argue this. I am only doing my duty as counsel by reading these out. So I concur with Your Lordships that media should be responsible: Kamat
If a believer thinks a practice is essential to his faith and that practice is innocuous and does not infringe on anyone's freedom, then in that context, the test of essential religious practice will not arise: Kamat
Is it your case that these students have been wearing head scarf and practicing it for considerable time: CJ Awasthi
I am grateful for this question. It is my case that we have been wearing this since our admission to the college. We have mentioned it in our petition: Kamat. #HijabBan#HijabControversy
And they have been wearing it of same colour as uniform. It is not our case that we will wear some other colour. We want to cover our heads using headscarf of same colour as that of uniform: Kamat
Kamat reading out from Madras High Court judgment in Ajmal Khan which said wearing purdah is not essential but headscarf is. The judgment referred to a Malaysian high court and Supreme Court judgments.
Is Malaysia secular country or theistic country: Justice Krishna S Dixit
Justice Dixit asks whether there are any decisions by court of any other Islamic country other than Malasyia taking a contrary view on hijab as essential to Islam.
I am not aware of. But I am not a repository of all knowledge. But as of now my research shows, there is no authoritative pronouncement saying it is not essential practice of Islam: Kamat
The second judgment cited by GO is Bombay HC judgment but this does not help State government because it is rendered in the context of all girls section: Kamat
Thus, these judgments have to be seen in the context of facts.
The third judgment cited by GO is a Madras HC judgment. This has nothing to do with Article 25: Kamat
This judgment does not have one word on Article 25 or headscarf. This was a case where uniform was prescribed for teachers and whether the same was permissible under the Act and under contract with teachers: Kamat.
Relying on this decision by GO is a fatal error: Kamat.
Kamat now moving on to judgments which he is proposing to rely on.
First judgment Kamat refers to is of the Shirur Mutt case.
My argument is College Development Committee has no statutory basis. It is formed under circular which does not pass muster for restricting public order: Kamat
There is no law for social welfare and reform which prescribes such measures.
As far as Article 25(2) exception is concerned, the College Development Committee has no statutory basis: Kamat.
State has power to regulate any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice for social welfare: Kamat
Article 25(2) allows State to regulate religious practice economic, financial, political or other secular activity and not core religious practice: Kamat
Core religious practice is under Article 25(1) which is subject to public order, health and morality: Kamat
Supreme Court, therefore, held in Bijoe Emmanuel that expulsion of children for not singing national anthem was illegal: Kamat
Kamat now referring to Shayara Bano judgment. He reads out Justice Kurian Joseph's concurring opinion which held that if Islamic scriptures say that a practice is mandatory, then court should allow it.
I would not like to comment on the larger issue of whether every tenet prescribed in Quran is ERP because it does not arise for consideration of Your Lordships: Kamat
Your Lordships have also time and again held that in judicial review, your lordships won't enter into larger canvass: Kamat
I have not gone into Essential Religious Practice test (ERP) in deep because it is not needed in here. This is because ERP comes in when a practice affects anybody else's rights or is so abhorrent or despicable. That is not the case here: Kamat
I am looking for judgments and if I get something I will make that good. My submission is public order is State function: Kamat.
There is no dispute that responsibility of law and order is on State: CJ Awasthi
When my religious freedom is being violated, can State take up a facile plea that this will create public order issue and hence we will restrict that religious freedom: Kamat.
If that is the case, then they cannot restrict it on public order. I would be happy if the State says there is no public order issue. Then GO has to go: Kamat
#SupremeCourt to hear petition seeking a direction to the Central government to frame a Model Builder Buyer Agreement to ensure transparency and to protect the interests of homebuyers as per the aims of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 @AshwiniUpadhyay
Sr Adv Menaka Guruswamy: The Solicitor General was asked to get response of the Centre. It's about how union can be involved in law reforms in this area. Sections 41 and 42 of RERA provides of central advisory council
ASG Aishwarya Bhati: The model BBA has already been adopted and circulated. We have said so in the counter too. For those UTs who did not the law, onus was on centre to provide the agreement
Justice DY Chandrachud led bench hears an appeal by National Medical Commission in a case
Justice DY Chandrachud: This is a case where in a padeatric ward all children were admitted without any problems. Have you seen the Munnabhai MBBS movie counsel ?
#SupremeCourt to hear plea stating that ₹8 lakh cut-off for inclusion in the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) criteria cannot be implemented for #NEETPG202223 (NEET PG 2022-23) since EWS issue is pending before SC & would be taken up for hearing in March, 2022 @advocate_tanvi
Dr Charu Mathur requests for Passover
Justice Chandrachud: What is this petition. How can we stop the process ..we will decide the matter in March
Mathur: it's about the window deadline
DYC J: That we cannot stop. If authorities have set out a window then so be it
SC: When we are looking at under Article 32 se will pass directions at appropriate time under the Dr Nunes case
Mathur: but there is no whisper of Dr Nunes in the prospectus of NEET PG 2022 23
Karnataka High Court is set to pronounce its judgment in a batch of petitions challenging the Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act, 2021, which prohibits and criminalises betting on and playing games of skill, including online games.
#KarnatakaHC: We have no struck down the entire act.
However, the consequences of striking down the provisions shall follow. However, nothing in this judgement should be construed to prevent an apt legislation from being brought about concerning the subject
The investigation related to a complaint in 2015-16 where Anand Subramanian was hired as a Group Operating Officer / Advisor to MD at a salary of 1.6 crores. This was a 10 fold jump from Rs. 15 Lakhs which he was drawing in his previous job at Balmer & Lawrie @NSEIndia#SEBI
Anand Subramanian was appointed without any advertisement for the post and interview.
He was on a 4 DAY WORK / WEEK and his compensation jumped to 4 crores in April 2016.
He travelled FIRST CLASS and was in Chennai every WEEKEND.
In a democracy, different yardsticks cannot be applied for different religions. Ghungats, bindis, turbans, dupattas, scarves and so on are in a similar league: Meenakshi Arora