Bar & Bench Profile picture
Feb 15 71 tweets 32 min read
Hijab Ban: Karnataka High Court full bench to hear petitions against ban on wearing hijab in Govt colleges.

#Hijab #HijabRow #KarnatakaHijabRow #karnatakahighcourt

Track this thread for LIVE UPDATES from court.
Hindu Sena Vice President has filed intervention application before the High Court praying that he be heard.

#Hijab #HijabRow #HijabBan

Read more about that here: bityl.co/Aw4V
Hijab Ban: LIVE UPDATES from Karnataka High Court Full Bench hearing

#HijabBan #HijabRow #karnatakahijab

Read live account from court here: bityl.co/Aw4t
Advocate mentions that the interim order of the Court is only for colleges which have uniform.

But despite that Muslim girls are being forced to remove hijab even in colleges which do not have uniform.

CJ Awasthi: File an application for clarification.

#HijabRow #HijabBan
Advocate General Prabhuling Navadgi: We cannot respond to vague allegations. Let him file a proper application.

#HijabRow #HijabBan
Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat resumes his submissions.

#KarnatakaHijabRow #karnatakahijab
Kamat refers to the Kannada term "Sarvajanika Suvyavasthe" used in GO and the submission of the AG that it does not mean 'public order'.

I had to go to Kannada translation of Constitution and wherever public order is used, it is Sarvajanika Suvyavasthe: Kamat

#HijabRow
It is surprising that they have not read the translation: Kamat.

Justice Krishna Dixit: We are interpreting a GO. We cannot interpret a term in GO based on what is used in Constitution.
My argument is the word Sarvajanika Suvyavasthe is not capable of two meanings. That is my argument. Public order in Constitution is Sarvajanika Suvyavasthe: Kamat.
If the State has used that term in the GO, it has to be given the same meaning as that in the Constitution: Kamat

#HijabBan #HijabRow
It has been used in the Constitution 9 times: Kamat referring to Articles where the term Sarvajinaka Suvyavasthe is used in Kannada translation of the Constitution.

#hijabban #HijabControversy #karnatakahijab
It is categoric that Sarvajanika Suvyavasthe is public order and the use of the same in GO cannot have any other meaning: Kamat

#karnatakahijab #KarnatakaHijabRow
The second issue that fell from Bench yesterday was why we are going only on Article 25(1) and not Article 25(2): Kamat
Can essential religious practice be curtailed for reform under Article 25 (2)?

That is answered by Constitution Bench decision of Supreme Court in Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin vs The State Of Bombay: Kamat
indiankanoon.org/doc/510078/
In that case a law was brought about to prevent excommunication practice among Dawoodi Bohra community. It was struck down saying it is essential religious practice: Kamat

#HijabRow #HijabControversy
Neither under Article 25(2)(a) or (b) can ERP be curtailed except under public order, morality or health: Kamat
Kamat reading out from judgment when ERP can be restrained.

There is some amount of guidance on how State has to exercise its powers to restrict ERP: Kamat

#HijabBan #HijabRow
As per the guidance of Supreme Court, if a religious practice is abhorrent then State on ground of public order, health or morality can stop it.

But in this case, this is a innocuous practice, wearing of headscarf: Kamat

#HijabRow #KarnatakaHijabControversy
The essence of Article 25 is it protects any practice of faith but not mere display of religious identity or jingoism: Kamat
When I was in school and college, I used to wear a rudraksha on my neck. It was not for displaying religious identity. By wearing it, I felt a link with my creator, a certain degree of protection: Kamat

#HijabRow #HijabBan
This is not a display of religious identity. It is a practice of faith. To counter that, nobody wears a shawl. You will have to show that it is not display of religious identity alone but something more: Kamat.
If it is sanctioned by our scriptures, Vedas, Upanishads, Your Lordships are duty bound to protect it. If not Article 25 wont apply: Kamat

#HijabRow #HijabControversy #KarnatakaHijabControversy
The legislation relied upon by State should have intent to reform. They have relied on Education Act but that law does not show that it is a law which has been enacted to curb hijab or for some social reform. That law should show a specific intent: Kamat

#HijabRow
On the next aspect of other jurisdictions/ countries apart from Muslim countries which have gone into hijab and whether it is a right, we did some home work: Kamat
I will take the Court through some countries where courts have responded to this issue.

Kamat refers to South African judgment of Antony v. Governing Body.

#HijabBan #HijabControversy
Justice Dixit: Is it a theocratic State?

Kamat: No, the jurisdictions I am going to cite have a written Constitution.

#HijabControversy #KarnatakaHijabControversy
In the Antony v. Governing Body, the petitioner embraced an African faith of Rastafari which required her to grow dreadlocks: Kamat:
The judgment said that even though there was a prescribed uniform, the person who asked for exemption from the same should be accommodated and not punished: Kamat

#HijabRow #KarnatakaHijabControversy
Kamat referring to another judgment of Constitutional court of South Africa.

The issue was whether a Hindu girl with roots in South India could wear a nose ring in school.

The argument of school was it will lead to "parade of horrible": Kamat
Kamat reading out from the judgment which says how we are not islands but are connected by a superior force.

Our scriptures also say the same. And that is what is expressed even in distant African land. I thought it was quite astonishing: Kamat

#HijabRow
The judgment said that the practice has to seen from the point of believer, same as what Bjioe Emmanual said: Kamat

#HijabRow #KarnatakaHijabControversy
What the judgment suggests is that there should be certain degree of accommodation. That you can't send a message to someone in a community that a particular religion or culture is not welcome: Kamat

#HijabRow #HijabControversy
The Constitutional Court of South Africa said that it is not for the Court to tell the girl that she is wrong because others do not relate to that religion or culture in the same way: Kamat reading out from the judgment

#HijabRow #HijabBan
What is the ratio of this judgment? Justice Krishna Dixit

The conclusion is in para 112 which said the expulsion of the girl from school cannot be sustained: Kamat

#HijabRow #HijabBan #karnatakahijab
The South African Court in that case said that it was not a case of uniform but about exemption to existing uniform: Kamat

#HijabRow #HijabBan #karnatakahijab
In our case, it is not even about exemption to uniform but just about an additional head scarf of same colour: Kamat

#HijabRow #HijabBan
The school in that case had argued that if the nose ring is permitted, more students will come with dreadlocks, body piercings, lion claws etc. The same argument is being raised here: Kamat

#HijabBan #HijabRow
The Court found that this argument has no merit since the judgment applies only to bona fide religious and cultural practice: Kamat

#HijabRow #karnatakahijab
The Court of South Africa said that display of religion and culture is not a parade of horrible but fragrance of diversity which will only enrich our country: Kamat

#HijabRow #HijabBan
You said you yesterday that you will complete your arguments in 10 minutes today: CJ Awasthi

Yes, but it was my duty to respond to queries raised by Court yesterday. I promise I will finish today: Kamat

#HijabBan
Kamat referring to judgment of Justice DY Chandrachud wherein he talks about growing intolerance in context of West Bengal govt stopping screening of movie Bhobishyoter Bhoot
barandbench.com/news/supreme-c…
I will not trouble Your Lordships with more judgments. I have said everything in my written submissions. I will conclude in 10 minutes: Kamat

#HijabRow #KarnatakaHighCourt
Kamat referring to doctrine of heckler's veto

As per the same heckler cannot be allowed to veto a fundamental right and Justice Chandrachud and Gulam Abbas Ali have recognised the doctrine in India: Kamat
According to the doctrine, the State has a positive obligation to create a situation for enforcement of fundamental freedoms: Kamat

#HijabRow #KarnatakaHijabControversy #karnatakahijab
Our secularism is not Turkey secularism. Our secularism is positive secularism where State plays an enabling role to exercise fundamental rights and religious freedoms of all communities. It recognises all religions as true: Kamat

#HijabRow #HijabBan
Kamat reading out Aruna Roy judgment which spoke about Sarva Dharma Samabhava.
indiankanoon.org/doc/509065/
We are not Turkey which says no religious symbols can be displayed in public. That Hijab ban was upheld by court due to that. But their Constitution is completely different. Our Constitution recognises different faith: Kamat

#HijabBan #HijabRow
Assuming you have power to prescribe and enforce uniform, where is the power to expel students from school because they have not adhered to that uniform, The doctrine of proportionality will come in: Kamat

#HijabRow #KarnatakaHijabRow
In your case, have the students been expelled? CJ Awasthi

No, but they are not being allowed to attend class. It has the same effect: Kamat

Expulsion is one thing, not permitting entry is another: Justice Krishna Dixit
If a passenger is not allowed inside train because he does not have a ticket, that is not expulsion: Justice Krishna S Dixit
This is not a case of passenger in train. This is a case of student wanting to access education and State is saying we will not permit you. I raised proportionality in that context: Kamat

#HijabRow #HijabBan #KarnatakaHighCourt
The sweep of Your Lordships order would be extremely broad. In the meanwhile, please make some leeway to have same uniform with same colour headscarf. Please don't continue the interim order is my submission: Kamat

#HijabRow #HijabBan
Kamat concludes. Thanks his colleagues who did the research - Nishant Patil, Nizam Pasha, Shahul and Niyas.

I am only a mouthpiece of their hard work: Kamat

#HijabRow #HijabBan
Senior Advocate Ravivarma Kumar commences arguments for Smt. Resham

Advocate General says he wants to point out a factual aspect. AG says Kumar's client has filed two petitions.

#HijabBan
The same petitioner cannot urge same questions of law based on same facts through another counsel: AG
After some confusion, Senior Advocate Ravivarma Kumar resumes arguments.

#HijabRow #HijabBan
Let us first understand the status of the petitioner. Has she filed memo for withdrawal of other petition: CJ Awasthi.

Yes: Ravivarma Kumar.

#HijabBan
Kumar referring to State of Objections.

The government is yet to take a decision. It has constituted a high level committee which will examine the matter. As of now govt has not prescribed any uniform or prohibited wearing of hijab: Kumar

#HijabRow #karnatakahijab
Kumar referring to GO and says he does not want to go into "Suvyavasthe".

"This is definitely avyavasthe," he says.

#HijabRow #HijabBan
Kumar reading out GO.

The govt itself has said they have not decided on uniform but has constituted a high power committee to go into the question: Kumar.
In colleges under Karnataka pre-university committee, the uniform prescribed by College Development Committee has to be followed: Kumar reading out GO.
The sum and substance is there is no ban on hijab. The prescription is CDC shall prescribe the uniform: Kumar.

#HijabRow
Kumar referring to Karnataka Education Act.

It is my submission that College Development Committee is an extra legal committee contrary to the scheme of the Act and the letter of the rule: Kumar

#HijabRow #HijabControversy
Kumar referring to Section 2(7) of Karnataka Education Act on definition of "competent authority".

It has not been given any power to prescribe uniform: Kumar

#HijabRow #HijabBan
So you are saying College Development Committee is not defined under the Act: CJ Awasthi

It is not an authority under the Act: Kumar

We will continue tomorrow: CJ Awasthi

#HijabRow #karnatakahijab
Colleges are reopening tomorrow. I have filed an application yesterday: Kumar

That application is defective. We can't respond to it: AG Navadgi
A memorandum of facts can be sworn by counsel only on facts which are on record: Navadgi
It is provided in Civil Rules: Adv Tahir

This is a bad practice. Application has to be accompanied by affidavit sworn by petitioner. A lawyer cannot. We will not allow this malpractice: CJ Awasthi
Adv Tahir says difficult for petitioner to come all the way from Udupi to Bengaluru everytime

Court rejects.

Hearing concludes for the day.

#HijabRow #HijabBan #KarnatakaHijabRow
[Hijab ban] We are not Turkey which says no religious symbols can be displayed in public: Petitioner to Karnataka High Court

#HijabControversy #HijabRow #karnatakahijab #KarnatakaHighCourt

Read story here: bityl.co/AwFE

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Bar & Bench

Bar & Bench Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @barandbench

Feb 16
Hijab Ban: Karnataka HC full-bench to resume hearing at 2.30 pm today.

Devadatt Kamat concluded his arguments yesterday. Sr. Adv. Ravivarma Kumar is currently making arguments.

Track this thread for LIVE UPDATES.

#HijabRow #HijabControversy #KarnatakaHighCourt Image
The matter is being heard by a Bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justices Krishna S Dixit and JM Khazi.

#HijabRow #KarnatakaHijabControversy #KarnatakaHighCourt
Hijab Ban: LIVE UPDATES from Karnataka High Court

#HijabBan #KarnatakaHijabControversy #KarnatakaHighCourt

Read here: bityl.co/Ax9j Image
Read 99 tweets
Feb 16
Supreme Court Bench of Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Vikram Nath are hearing the ex-servicemen's plea to implement "One Rank One Pension" in the Defence Forces Image
ASG Venkataraman: they have raised 3 contentions
1. they say it should be automatic, not periodical
2. review once in 5 years is not acceptable
3. third is a chart which i will now show
ASG : The chart shows that you should take the scale and not go by the mean.

DYC, J : you've taken the mean but no one is brought down

ASG agrees
Read 37 tweets
Feb 16
#DelhiHighCourt will today pronounce its judgment in Ansal Brothers' plea seeking suspension of sentence in evidence tampering case related to Uphaar Cinema tragedy. Image
Justice Subramonium Prasad will pronounce the judgement shortly.
#DelhiHighCourt #UphaarTragedy
Bench has assembled.
Read 5 tweets
Feb 15
#BombayHighCourt expresses dissatisfaction at affidavit submitted by #maharashtragoverment on the status of CCTV installations in the State.

@CMOMaharashtra
@DGPMaharashtra
Bench of Justice SJ Kathawalla and Milind Jadhav had directed for action to be taken against senior inspectors to ensure that the Supreme Court order on installation of cameras is followed.

Read story: bit.ly/3Jsbjer
The Court also sought for a report which was tendered today.

Court: We see that an action has been taken after court passed the order.
Are we supposed to run the administration, spoon feed them? Whatever we have stated (in order) has been reproduced in the ‘paripatrak’.
Read 9 tweets
Feb 15
Supreme Court hears a plea by G Devarajegowda against @PrajwalRevanna 's 2019 Lok Sabha Election from Hassan. He is @H_D_Devegowda 's grandson. The plea said that Prajwal had resorted to unfair and corrupt practices and his election should be set aside #SupremeCourt
Notice was issued on the last date. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appears. @iPrajwalRevanna #SupremeCourt
Rohatgi: If there is no compliance of Sec 81 of RPA, then the petition must be dismissed. It is mandatory in nature.

@iPrajwalRevanna #SupremeCourt #SupremeCourtofIndia
Read 4 tweets
Feb 15
#SupremeCourt to pronounce orders on Future Retail Ltd.’s plea seeking to proceed with securing the National Company Law Tribunal‘s approval for its Rs 27,513-crore transaction with Reliance Retail Ventures Ltd.  @amazon #AmazonVsFuture
Future Retail had told the court that the NCLT approval requires multiple steps which will take a few months and therefore the court should allow the process to continue
#AmazonVsFuture #SupremeCourt
This is the same case where the top court had denied permission to Amazon to file additional written statements after orders were reserved
#AmazonVsFuture

barandbench.com/news/litigatio…
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

:(