Thread by @barandbench

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

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

Bench has assembled.

#KarnatakaHighCourt #HijabRow #KarnatakaHijabControversy

Advocate Kaleeswaram Raj says to avoid confusion and save time, every lawyer be allotted some time limit for arguments.

Advocate General Prabhuling Navadgi agrees to the suggestion.

#HijabRow #KarnatakaHighCourt #KarnatakaHijabControversy

Court says it is reluctant to hear intervention applications.

"It will waste time of court," says CJ Awasthi.

#HijabRow #KarnatakaHijabControversy

Adv. Shadan Farasat: Please impose time limit and we will abide by it, but please hear all of us. Don't exclude us without hearing

#HijabRow #KarnatakaHighCourt

Sr. Adv. Ravivarma Kumar resumes arguments.

#HijabBan #KarnatakaHijabControversy #karnatakahijab

Kindly refer to Rule 11 of Karnataka Education Rules 1995.

It provides that when an educational institution intends to change the uniform, it has to issue notice 1 year in advance to parents: Kumar

There is another set of Rules made under the Karnataka Education Act.

Kumar now referring to rules on inspection committee. But college development committee is not recognised under these Rules: Kumar

#HijabRow #KarnatakaHijabControversy

As per guidelines issued by Govt dept administering the institution in question, for pre-university govt colleges prescription of uniform is illegal: Kumar.

Who issued this guideline and under what authority, nothing is mentioned: CJ Awasthi

It is issued by Govt Dept: Kumar

It is not a regulation: CJ Awasthi

It is not a rule. I respectfully agree. But it is a statement of fact that no uniform has been prescribed: Kumar

#HijabRow #KarnatakaHijabControversy

Justice Dixit: You are pressing into this instrument. If you want to bank upon it we want to know its legal status.

#HijabBan #KarnatakaHighCourt #KarnatakaHijabControversy

This instrument give the programme for academic year. It gives the calendar, admissions to be made for each course, how are admissions to be made: Kumar

#KarnatakaHighCourt #KarnatakaHC

I am placing this instrument to show that the Dept itself has said emphatically that no principal shall endorse uniform and principal shall be proceeded against if he insists on uniform.

Now students are being proceeded against for wearing hijab: Kumar.

#KarnatakaHC #HijabBan

Ravivarma Kumar: Court may note the fact that neither the provisions under the Act or under the rules prescribe any uniform. There is no prohibition to wear hijab under the Act or under the Rules

Justice Dixit: I am just trying to logically analyse it. There is no prohibition as such. Logically analyzing it - there is no prohibition for carrying kripan, or anything else which may be objectionable.

#karnatakahijab #KarnatakaHijabControversy

Because these are not spoken of the Act need not mean it might be permitted. It is true that it does not say hijab should be permitted or not permitted. But it has to be independently argued: Justice Dixit.

#karnatakahijab #KarnatakaHijabControversy #KarnatakaHC

Kumar : I am only saying, there is no prohibition against hijab. Therefore the question is under what authority am I kept out of the class? Under what Rule? Who has authorized such an act?

#KarnatakaHighCourt #KarnatakaHijabControversy

Ravivarma Kumar refers to portions of the Government Order which refer to the hijab, directly and indirectly. He points out that the final order means the Govt has delegated the power to prescribe uniform to the College Development Committee.

#KarnatakaHijabControversy

Kumar referring to that portion of GO which says it has been noticed that certain students are following their practice as per their religion...This is a direct indictment of those who have come with hijab: Kumar

#KarnatakaHC #Hijab

Kumar, referring to the Karnataka Education Act, Section 143, which deals with delegation

#HijabRow #Hijab #KarnatakaHighCourt #KarnatakaHC

Section 143 deal with powers of State govt to delegate powers under the Act.

#KarnatakaHijabControversy #KarnatakaHijabRow

As per Section 143 delegation must be by "such officer or authority subordinate to the State Government". College Development Committee is not an authority, much less an authority subordinate to the State Government: Kumar

#KarnatakaHijabControversy #karnatakahijab

The College Development Committee was not constituted to deal with students welfare or students discipline. It was only for academic standards: Kumar

The College Development Committee was not constituted to deal with students welfare or students discipline. It was only for academic standards: Kumar

Can't the college prescribe uniforms to maintain academic standards? Why can't it be for maintaining uniformity, discipline, uniforms are necessary? It can be a part of academic standards: CJ Awasthi

#KarnatakaHijabControversy #KarnatakaHC

It has no connection with academic standards. Academic standards deal with student teacher ratio, curriculum, syllabus, the way classes are conducted etc

It can't be by any stretch of imagination be by prescribing police power over students: Kumar

Why can't it be construed as maintaining discipline and uniformity which are essential to maintain academic standards: CJ Awasthi.

#KarnatakaHijabControversy #KarnatakaHC

That field is already occupied. Section 7 covers these aspects: Kumar.

What is this police powers. In police military I can understand calling it police powers. Prescribing it in educational institutions cannot be termed as police power. It is parental power. Judicial opinion is also contrary to what you are saying: Justice Dixit.

#HijabRow

If there is one decision to the contrary, I will be extremely happy. I will confess that I am wrong: Justice Dixit.

What I am saying is the GO does not confer that power to prescribe uniform: Kumar

#KarnatakaHijabRow #KarnatakaHijabControversy

CJ Awasthi: You say that the College Development Committee has no power to prescribe uniform?

Ravivarma Kumar: Yes they do not have the authority to prescribe uniforms. This is a Committee to which no power can be delegated under Section 143. It is not an authority under the Act. Can an MLA be considered as 'subordinate' to the Government?

Ravivarma Kumar: If I may say so with respect, under our Constitution, it is the representatives of the people, the MLAs or MPs who hold the Government accountable. The hallmark of Indian democracy is to hold the Government accountable.

#KarnatakaHC #HijabBan

Ravivarma Kumar: How can an MLA take over administration? The doctrine of separation of powers is to ensure there is no mixing of powers. An MLA or MP cannot be entrusted with power under the statute or under Article 162 of the Constitution

#KarnatakaHijabRow #HijabBan

Ravivarma Kumar: It would be a deathblow to give an MLA administrative power. An MLA, whoever he may be, will be representing a political party or ideology. Can you entrust the welfare of students to a political party or political ideology?

#HijabBan

In 2015, Govt constituted a committee under local MLAs, for distributing houses under the Free housing scheme.
It was challenged as MLAs can't be given administrative powers.
Was it struck down: Justice Dixit
That order was stayed: Kumar

Later, the scheme was permitted to be implemented and another committee was constituted.

Everything is wrong to give MLA administrative powers. That would be death knell to Indian democracy: Kumar

MLA whoever it is might have allegiance to a political party or ideology. Can you entrust welfare of students to political party or ideology: Kumar.

#HijabRow #KarnatakaHijabRow

Constitution of a committee of this nature spells death knell to Indian democracy and to doctrine of separation of powers: Kumar

#KarnatakaHC #HijabRow

Ravivarma Kumar: In South India we are very fond of religious symbols. When people go to any place, particularly a public place, even our teachers used to wear religious symbols.

Ravivarma Kumar referring to a case: There was a temple elephant. The question was, what kind of religious symbol should be on the forehead of the elephant? The matter went up to the Privy Council, by that time the elephant was dead

Justice Dixit: That should not happen in this case

Ravivarma Kumar: I respectfully agree, that should not happen. This issue was fought for 250 years. The great Parasaran in the last days if I remember.

#KarnatakaHighCourt

Ravivarma Kumar: Referring to a research paper - It is a comprehensive survey on religious symbols and personal appearance. Many Indians also display their religious beliefs by attire, clothing.

Half of all Hindus and Muslims and majority of Christians say they generally wear a religious pendant. Sikhs wear a kara and keep their hair long. Many of these practices are gender specific: Kumar

Vast majority of muslim men wear skull cap. Among women, wearing headcover is common among Muslims (89%), Sikhs (86%) and Hindus (59%). Practice of wearing head cover outside home is less common among Christians and Buddhists: Kumar referring to the paper.

Adv. Ravivarma Kumar: (referring to the paper) Most Hindu, Muslim, Sikh women cover their head outside the home. Every college going student wears a dupatta, no matter their religion.

Justice Dixit: What is the authenticity of this paper?

The Supreme Court has said, when research papers are produced before the Court, the Court should verify the authenticity and representative character of the research.

#karnatakahijab #HijabRow

Ravivarma Kumar: I am not insisting on acceptance of empirical data in the paper. I am only bringing to the notice of the Court the diversity present in the country. If there are 100 symbols why is the Government picking on only hijab?

#HijabRow

That we will consider. But unless a paper's prima facie authenticity is produced - what is the research, who authorized it, the methodology, we cannot accept it: Justice Dixit

Ravivarma Kumar: I am only trying to demonstrate the plurality present in the society. Hindus have their religious symbols, Sikhs have it, Christians have it... why is only hijab being targeted?

#KarnatakaHC #KarnatakaHighCourt #HijabRow

Bangles are worn. Why only pick on these poor Muslims girls: Kumar

#karnatakahijab #KarnatakaHijabRow

Ravivarma Kumar: Referring to Article 15: The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. In this case I am being discriminated against only because of my religion.

#HijabRow #KarnatakaHijabRow

CJ Ritu Raj Awasthi: You say Article 15 prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion. But the rule prohibits headdress to everyone, not only to one particular section.

#HijabRow #KarnatakaHC

Hijab is worn only by Muslims. Goonghat is permitted, bangles are permitted, Why not ban on crucifix of Christians. Why not turban of Sikhs? Kumar

Kumar referring to a 163 judgment: Even before the ink on the Constitution was dry, a matter was taken before the Supreme Court. In a place in UP, elections were held on the basis of community.

#HijabRow #KarnatakaHC

The case referred to is Nain Sukh Das And Another vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors

indiankanoon.org/doc/1101047/

The Court held that constitutional mandate to the State not to discriminate against any citizen on the ground, inter- alia, of religion clearly extends to political as.well as to other rights: Kumar

#HijabRow #KarnatakaHijabRow

Ravivarma Kumar: Why only hijab. Why no other religious symbol considered by GO. The discrimination against Muslim girls is based purely on their religion.

#KarnatakaHighCourt #KarnatakaHijabControversy

Justice Dixit: If a girl belonging to another community suffers from alopecia, and if she wears a headscarf she will not be permitted.

Kumar: She can claim exemption. We cannot, we are not even heard. We are punished straightaway. Can there be a more draconian measure?

Here it is full of prejudice because of religion, no notice. We are made to sit out of classroom by persons who have no authority whatsoever under the Act: Kumar.

#KarnatakaHC #HijabRow

Ravivarma Kumar: the goal of education is to promote plurality, not homogeneity. The classroom should be a reflection of diversity in the society.

Kumar refers to Puttaswamy and NALSA judgments of Supreme Court in this regard.

#KarnatakaHijabRow #HijabRow

In Navtej Singh Johar, Section 377 was struck down: Kumar

Is this for the proposition that there should be no uniform at all? Justice Dixit

No, this is for proposition that heterogeneity should be maintained. Unity in diversity should be the motto, plurality should be preserved: Kumar

#KarnatakaHijabControversy #HijabRow

Ravivarma Kumar: If people wearing a turban can be in the army, why can't a person wearing her religious symbol be allowed to attend classes? This is a draconian measure.

#KarnatakaHC #HijabRow

The Court may take judicial note of the fact that Muslim girls are least represented in classrooms. If they are shut out of classrooms on these grounds that will be spelling doomsday for their education: Kumar

#HijabRow #KarnatakaHijabRow

Kumar concludes his arguments.

#KarnatakaHighCourt #HijabBan

Sr. Adv Yusuf Muchhala commences his arguments.

#HijabRow #karnatakahijab

Muchhala is representing Muslim girls.

These girls have been stopped from attending classes since 3rd February 2022. I will not repeat what has been argued by my learned friends who have preceded me, I am in complete agreement with them: Muchhala

Muchhala: The impugned order suffers from manifest arbitrariness and is hit by Article 14.

Muchhala refers to judgment in Shayara Bano vs Union Of India And Ors.

#KarnatakaHijabRow #karnatakahijab

Muchhala: Rule 11 provides that there should be a notice of one year to prescribe a uniform.

Justice Dixit: That is for changing uniform, not prescribing it.

#KarnatakaHC #HijabBan

Muchhala: Here in this case these girls were wearing a headscarf since they joined the institution.

CJ Awasthi: Was it a part of the uniform? Was any headdress prescribed in the uniform?

#HijabRow #KarnatakaHijabRow

Muchhala: When we say uniform it is also about the practice which was adopted in the school, and all of a sudden you change it. Fairness requires that notice should be given. Is it a fair procedure? On the ground of fairness they should have been heard.

#KarnatakaHC #HijabBan

Muchhala: The fact that it has been done because of the opposition of some other students is also recorded in the government response and Order. It is partisan, totally unfair and falls under manifest arbitrariness

Suppose a girl is wearing glass. And a change is brought about can you say you have to wear glass of particular colour only and you will not be permitted. So these things cannot be taken so rigidly: Muchhala

#KarnatakaHighCourt #HijabRow

But whether any headdress was prescribed as part of the uniform: CJ Awasthi

It was not. Supposing there is mandate not to wear chappal. And if some girl wears chappal, will they say don't come into my class. So the practice adopted in the school should be considered: Muchhala

Suddenly when the practice was changed, fairness requires that notice be given. Rules may or may not require. But fairness require that they should have been heard and that is from Article 14: Muchhala

#HijabRow

Why was parent-teacher committee not consulted. What was the tearing hurry. The practice was ongoing since the girl took admission to the institution: Muchhala

#KarnatakaHijabControversy #KarnatakaHC

Why were they not heard. These are the grounds of manifest arbitrariness: Muchhala

#HijabRow #KarnatakaHijabRow

The fact that it is being done due to the opposition of some other students is also recorded in the GO. So it is partisan and hence falls within the mischief of manifest arbitrariness and has to be set aside: Muchhala

#HijabRow #Hijab #KarnatakaHC

Muchhala refers to Article 25(1).

It is a right of conscience. Then it is not necessary to go into the question whether the belief held by that person is a part of essential religious practice: Muchhala

The question of whether a religious practice is ERP is relevant only under Article 26(b) when it talks of denominationl rights and not when petitioners are making claim under Article 25(1): Muchhala

#HijabRow

Conscience under Art 25 is very wide term. There are people who may not believe in God yet entitled to their belief in conscience. There may be people who believe in universality of religions. If they come before court for protection, then ERP need not be gone into: Muchhala

This very issue is now being referred to 9-judge Bench of Supreme Court in Sabarimala case. This question of how far Court can interfere in religious beliefs of people....Muchhala

Bench conferring.

#HijabBan #KarnatakaHijabControversy

Muchhala: What is important is impact of the action. They may say uniformity, discipline etc. But doing this are you impacting rights of others? Here impact is on Art 25(1), 21 and 19(1)(a)

#KarnatakaHijabRow #KarnatakaHighCourt

Muchhala: Why should Muslim women who believe in hijab be put in a Hobson's choice situation, where they can either get education or have the right to their conscience? They are being put into a Hobson's choice situation.

This kind of Hobson's choice placed on petitioners should be disregarded: Muchhala

#HijabRow #KarnatakaHighCourt

Muchhala refers to Article 51A of the Constitution: Every citizen should promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities.

#HijabRow

This act is against the fundamental duty to promote harmony.

Refers to Article 51a(f) "to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture" - The Constitution takes into account the diversity which exists in our country: Muchhala

Any other point you would like to highlight: CJ Awasthi

Muchhala: I would also like to rely on the Doctrine of Proportionality.

CJ: You can elaborate on that in your written submission.

Muchhala refers to the case of Modern Dental College & Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors

#KarnatakaHighCourt #KarnatakaHijabRow

In this case, the measure goes against the purpose of the Act.

If purpose is harmony, then measure goes against harmony and fundamental duty under Art 51A: Muchhala

Assuming they want to have uniformity and discpline, then why not consult stakeholders and those whose rights are impacted: Muchhala

#HijabRow #KarnatakaHijabRow #KarnatakaHC

Muchhala: Interim applications are not yet disposed of, so is this on interim reliefs or final hearing?

You people started arguing and we heard. We don't know whether you are final or interim submissions: CJ Awasthi

We have not disposed of any interim relief applications. Let that be very clear: CJ Awasthi

#HijabRow #KarnatakaHighCourt #KarnatakaHijabRow

Sr Ravivarma Kumar seeking clarification on the interim order. Says application for it was not heard yesterday due to some technical error.

The application is to permit students to use same colour dupatta to cover heads, instead of any additional headscarf: Kumar.

#HijabRow

Advocate General Prabhuling Navadgi seeks two days to file objection to it which Bench grants.

Bench rises for the day. Next hearing tomorrow at 2.30 pm.

#HijabRow #KarnatakaHijabRow

[Hijab Ban] Bangles, crucifix, turban allowed; why only pick on Muslim girls? Petitioner to Karnataka High Court

#HijabRow #KarnatakaHighCourt #KarnatakaHC #KarnatakaHijabRow

Read story: bityl.co/AxMF