The petition would not be maintainable unless you show resolution of society deciding to file petition and authorising the person to file petition: CJ Awasthi
One other aspect the State wants to place before the Court, is that according to us the practice of hijab to be accepted must pass the test of constitutional morality and individual dignity, as expounded in the SC decisions in Sabarimala and Shayara Bano case: AG Navadgi
We want to trace the background of the Government Order. This is centric to Government PU College Udupi. The prescription of uniform has been there for some time, this has been from 2013: AG Navadgi
There was a resolution of the College Development Committee, to change the uniform of the girl students. The endeavor is to show that there was a prescription on uniform in the year 2013-14 itself: AG Navadgi
What is the sanctity of College Development Committee under the scheme of the Act: Justice Dixit
So far as how to locate CDC, I will bring it to Court notice with respect to Karnataka Education Act: AG Navadgi
There was a resolution passed in 2018, about the uniform. It was resolved to maintain the same uniform. The school uniform for girls was prescribed. There was no difficulty that time: AG
There was no difficulty until 2021, when a group of students insisted that they will enter the college wearing a hijab and informed the principal of the same: AG Navadgi
The college is only for women and uniform was implemented for discipline. Parents were requested to send their children to college only in the uniform: AG Navadgi
After this resolution came to be passed, they (Muslim students) continued with the insistence and did not adhere to resolution: AG Navadgi
When the Government was intimated of the sensitivity of the issue, we said we would constitute a High Level Committee to examine various issues and court judgments. Until then, we asked to maintain status quo: AG Navadgi
On 25.01.22, another resolution was passed by the College Development Committee. It was decided that status quo should be followed. There was a plea to parents that please follow uniform as it was before: AG Navadgi
In the institution unrest continued, which led to another resolution by the College Development Committee on 31st January. In this resolution they say children should not wear hijab and if parents send girls with hijab disciplinary action will be taken: AG Navadgi
By then State Govt was flooded about this issue spreading to other institutions. The intervention of State was called for. It was being projected as if the State was doing something about this matter and intervening in this matter: AG Navadgi
The protests and unrests went on. It is with that background that the impugned Order has been passed: AG Navadgi
Justice Dixit had made an observation that orders must be read as they are, as a plain reading and not as a statute. I cannot put it in a better manner than what Your Lordships have said: AG Navagi
The operative part of the GO is that the State Govt has ordered that in govt schools, students will wear the uniform that Govt has prescribed. In respect of private schools they will wear what the pvt school has prescribed: AG Navadgi
First portion is only for schools. So far as PUC colleges are concerned, the uniform prescribed by the CDC of the respective college should be followed: AG Navadgi
In the event that the CDC does not fix a uniform, student should wear a dress which is equal, decent. The draftsman has become enthusiastic and said public order: AG Navadgi
The question of proscribing or prescribing hijab does not arise. The State has given complete autonomy to the CDC and to private management for private colleges: AG Navadgi
The GO is innocuous. But come to the earlier part of this GO where you have said consider these judgments about hijab. What was the necessity to say all this: CJ Awasthi
State has revisionary powers under Section 131. If in future some student or authority with a grievance that it might result in something, we may or may not take a decision: AG
If the para of GO gives indication that hijab should be banned or proscribed, then I will clarify that it is not the purport of the order: AG
You have not stated it in so many words. But how will commoner interpret it - parents, teachers, students, members of CDC. How will they interpret it: Justice Dixit
AG Navadgi: The attack on the GO that it is irrational, discriminates against Muslim women is baseless. On a plain reading it does not affect anyone's rights.
AG Navadgi: Sr Adv. Kamath submitted the Order suffers from non application of mind. He said the judgments are not relevant.
A private educational institution has to seek formal recognition from the Govt. Section 36 is for recognition of private institutions. Section 38 is for educational institutions established and run by the State: AG Navadgi
AG Navadgi: For a Govt. PU college there is no Managing Committee. Somebody has to fix the uniform. So to give effect to this we use Section 133(2) of the Karnataka Education Act.
We had to put this rule into operation. What is interesting, the college has not called into questioned this order. None of the colleges have come before court saying this is without authority: AG Navadgi
It is students have come before the Court saying that it is without authority. The challenge should failm on that ground alone: AG
It is not a GO or a notification, it is a circular: CJ Awasthi
Normally it carries an approval of minister: AG Navadgi
That is what we want to know: CJ Awasthi
I will place that: AG
There is a representative character wrt CDC. There cannot be something better than this. Local MLA, parents, students representatives, members from SC/ST etc. It represents various groups: Navadgi
One argument by Ravivarma Kumar MLA should not take part. We have borrowed Westminster model not american model of keeping executive completely away: AG Navadgi
AG says no restriction on MLA being member.
Their argument was that MLA is a political character. Should that character be involved in the administration of an institution: Justice Dixit.
We are pained at the way the Government has been berated in these proceedings and how it is alleged we are dictated by some other reasons and that we are discriminating against girls and women. With absolute humility we say, State believes in treating everyone equally: AG
Justice Dixit: If the MLA and his nominee are holding President and VP positions in the Committee, what role do the others have to play.
Before that the manner in which the challenge has been made should be noted.
There is a provision under the Act that students can give a representation to the Parent-Teacher Committee. Nobody has done that, they have come straight to Court: Navadgi
The second issue is about hijab being part of essential religious practice. It has been said by petitioners that it is essential, does not go against public order, morality of health so should be protected by Article 25(1): AG Navadgi #HijabRow#Hijab#KarnatakaHijabControversy
CJ Awasthi: There was one argument by Sr. Adv Yusuf that even if it not essential religious practice, then also stopping hijab would violate Article 25(1) as it is also freedom of conscience.
Art 25(1) does not speak about any law to be made by the State. Articles 19(1) and 25(2) provides for law to be made State but the same is conspicuously absent in 25(1): AG Navadgi
AG Navadgi: So, if someone is to assert freedom of 25(1), the Court may have to examine whether it is in conflict of public order, morality or health. It should also be examined whether it comes into conflict with any other fundamental rights.
In the event of conflict, first test is the religious practice will give way to the three things in Article 25(1) and second test is to find out whether it conflicts with other fundamental rights: AG
During COVID all temples, churches and mosques came to be closed for so many months, for reasons of health. They are the essence of religion. But they were closed for health reasons: AG Navadgi
AG relies on DD Basu to say conscience and practice are two different things.
That distinction is thin but real. Therefore, they use the word freedom of conscience but right to practice: AG
One can be highly irreligious but may be conscientious and other way round: Justice Dixit
Yes: AG
As has been pointed out before, Article 25(1) has two parts - a) freedom of conscience and b) right to profess practice and propagate. There may be persons who do not believe in religion and believe only in earthly life. They have a right to "not believe".
Justice Dixit: You mean to say freedom of conscience is confined to atheists?
AG: certainly not
Justice Dixit: How to ascertain conscience? I say saluting a symbol is contrary to my conscience?
AG: Assert or ascertain?
Justice Dixit: Ascertain.
When Dr. Ambedkar introduced this, some of the members opposed. They introduced it as right to propagate religion.
The argument against it was if this power is given, then there is possibility of one religion being hegamonised over others: AG Navadgi
Dr. Amedkar intervened and said it wont, we also have freedom of conscience: AG Navadgi
Advocate Tahir: The interim order of Court said it is confined to colleges where CDC has prescribed uniform. But State has extended this order to all the schools, degree colleges and not just govt institutions with uniforms.
Muslim community is facing so much difficulty due to the order. Every department interpreting order differently. It is being to Urdu schools, etc where only muslims attend this order is being enforced: Adv
The purpose of order was to ensure law and order but it is creating such situation. Police personnel are being deployed to threaten and intimidate Muslim women, to remove their burkha and scarf: Adv
Let them give me details. We will instruct suitably to ensure nobody acts beyond Your Lordship's interim order: AG Navadgi
Vikram MR introduces the event: the slew of judgments Justice Lokur gave on Kashmiri Pandits, abandoned widows, death row convicts, fake encounters, clean air- even Taj Mahal owes some share of its glory to him!
#SupremeCourt to hear a plea seeking quashing of the recovery notices issued by the Uttar Pradesh administration to recover the damage caused to public properties in connection with protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act in the state #antiCAAProtests
During the last hearing, the bench observed that the Uttar Pradesh government has acted like a "complainant, adjudicator and prosecutor" by itself in conducting the proceedings to attach the properties of the accused #SupremeCourt
UP AAG: We have honoured the courts observations. All showcause notices have been withdrawn. District magistrates were also informed. All 275 files were also sent to the claims tribunal
Delhi Court to hear rebuttal arguments of Umar Khalid in an Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act connected to Delhi Riots. #UmarKhalid#UAPA#DelhiRiots
Previously, for co-accused Khalid Saifi, senior advocate Rebecca John argued there was no 'conspiracy of silence' in criminal law only conspiracy, contesting a submission of the prosecution. #UmarKhalid#UAPA#DelhiRiots
Hearing starts. Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat presides. Senior Advocate Trideep Pais is representing Khalid. Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad appears for state. #UmarKhalid#UAPA#DelhiRiots
@vikramsampath has approached the High Court seeking Rs 2 Crore in compensation from these historians and an injunction on publication of the letter where allegations of plagiarism were raised. barandbench.com/news/litigatio…
Justice Amit Bansal will start the hearing shortly.