LIVE updates: Hearing of petitions on Hijab row in Karnataka HC

The Karnataka high court has resumed hearing the writ-petition case on Tuesday (ie. Day eight of the hearings) regarding the ongoing hijab row in the state. To keep a track of the hearing, the major highlights from the case will be listed below.

Background of the case:

The petition garnered media attention primarily owing to the Hijab row engulfing the state of Karnataka. What started out as a government college hindering hijab-clad women from entering college campuses, has now blown into a full-fledged debate. The administration claims that the women were violating the dress code enforced by the college and as such cannot be permitted. The students on their end flagged the administration’s move as discriminatory and clearly opine that the hijab was a part of their faith and they felt no reason to abandon it.

This further blew up as saffron-clad Hindtuva students protested against the wearing of the hijab, dubbing it an issue of religious symbols being introduced in educational spaces. Muslim students, mostly female opined that they were wearing the uniform and as such were not violating any rule and also stated that the hijab was of significance to them as it was an essential practice of their faith.

High court denies interim relief to plaintiffs:

A few days ago, the bench stated that interim relief (for the plaintiffs) is not needed as it is a matter of a few days before the verdict will be pronounced. Further, the bench argued that till the matter is pending students and stakeholders will not insist on wearing any religious garment or headscarves (ie the hijab).

Major highlights (February 22)

05:14 pm: Court to continue hearing at 2.30 pm tomorrow.

04:58 pm: The girl students did not wear the hijab previously. Occasionally, the parents of the girls had asked about it and asked the teachers to ensure that the girls should not be involved in singing, dancing and such activities. None of these have anything to do with religion. There is a fine line of distinction between religious culture: SS Naganand

04:55 pm: The prayers in this petition are unusual – the prayer is to initiate enquiry against college for violating guidelines and for investigation against college authorities for hostile approach: SS Naganand.

04:52 pm: Senior Advocate R Venkataramani concludes. Senior Advocate SS Naganand begins submissions, appearing for three respondents.

04:50 pm: In our country, different faiths have their own domains and dimensions and live peacefully. I come from the Union Territory of Pondicherry. We have never known any clash between religions. In different parts of the country, we find clashes for the assertion of rights: R Venkataramani

04:46 pm: We as a nation have been pluralistic. But looking at experiences around the world, the Constitution makers thought we should not have those experiences here. So, public order, morality and health care guidelines. The state must look ahead and see what promotes order, discipline and what promotes good for the community. It is not only in Udupi, agitations are happening in many places. These proceedings are being watched by many: R Venkataramani

04:43 pm: Public order cannot be seen in a generic sense or abstract sense. The context here is a public space of a school: R Venkataramani

04:41 pm: Freedom of expression does not mean we have to back to the dark ages. We want to go forward and not go back to Dark Ages. People must have all the freedom to practice Holy Koran. But when you enter a public space, that too a qualified public space such as a school, it has its own dimensions.

04:37 pm: In Article 25(2), the state also comes in to regulate economic, social, financial or political activity. When that regulatory power comes in, issues essentially comes in. But with respect to Article 25 (1), what is essential does not arise: R Venkataramani.

04:34 pm: The state should not get involved in matters of what constitutes religion whatever is essential or not essential. The state will come in when it collides with public order, morality or health. Whatever be your practice, if it comes into conflict with public order, health or morality, the state can say ‘I will stop you’: R Venkatramani

04:32 pm: My second proposition is on Article 25 (1). Under it, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion: R Venkataramani

04:28 pm: Europe today is going through pluralism and merger and they can’t even hold together. EU is breaking. So to borrow a country’s example mechanically and to graft it Constitutional discipline in India might be problematic: Venkataramani.

04:26 pm: As long as a fundamental requirement of order in the institution is indispensable, mere deficiencies in procedure will not lead to nullification of such decision: Venkataramani

04:26 pm: “There is great stress on order and discipline. Any part of the world, the ethos, cultural aspect, the long history of the nation. France might not have a long history of pluralism. We do: Venkataramani

04:19 pm: Discipline and order are important for both teacher and taught. I am not trying to say that Religion A is higher or B is lower. There is no hierarchy of religions. Everyone has an equal right to practise and propagate their religion.

04:19 pm: Sr Adv. R Venkataramani begins submissions on behalf of a respondent-teacher.

04:18 pm: AG Navadgi concludes arguments.

04:17 pm: Women’s dignity must be kept in mind. This morning when I was coming to the Court I heard a beautiful song in Hindi: “Naa munh chhupake jiyo, Aur naa sar jhuka ke jiyo” That is what every woman must be trained and be expected to: AG Navadgi

04:06 pm: The entire claim of petitioners is to make it compulsory and that goes against the fundamentals of Constitutional interpretation: AG Navadgi

3:28 pm: Whatever Surahs the petitioners referred to, does not speak about the hijab.

3:25 pm: The petitioners made their arguments based on Surah number 24, verse 31. “Say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and not show their face to male relatives.”

3:21 pm: Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s translation also contains commentary to use for inferences in this case.

3:19 pm: AG also refers to English translator Marmaduke Pickthall. “Justice Chandrachud referred to him in Shayara Bano case.”

3:17 pm: “We have great respect for holy books and have only followed Yusuf Ali’s translation like the apex court has done.” : AG Navadgi

3:15 pm: Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s translation has been noted in the Shayara Bano case.

3:10 pm: AG Navadgi quotes from Surah number two, verse 144, 187, Surah 17, verse two, seven, Surah 22, verse 29. The AG is quoting from the English translation of the Quran by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, a Pakistani lawyer.

3:06 pm: Discussing Ismail Faurqui from the Ayodhya judgement the bench in the case noted that, “It may be noted that Article 25 does not include the right to acquire or possess property. Neither does it include the right to pray anywhere.”: AG Navadgi

3:05 pm: Unlike France, there is no prohibition in our country on religion: AG Navadgi

3:00 pm: Every institution has institutional discipline. It may be hospitals, schools, military establishments: AG Navadgi

2:48 pm: AG: Our case is that so far as the present case is concerned, Rule 11 places reasonable restriction as a matter of institutional discipline. There is no ban on wearing hijab in the country, but every institution has internal regulation and discipline.

2:45 pm: AG: One of the arguments which has been advanced by the petitioners is that their right is traced independently to Article 19(1)(a) to wear the dress in exercise of right of freedom of expression. That argument is mutually destructive and contrary to present preposition.

2:40 pm: AG quoting from the case – “No affidavit has been filed by any person specially competent to expound the relevant tenets of Islam. ‘No reference is made in the petition to any particular Surah of the Holy Quran which, in terms, requires the sacrifice of a cow.”

2:30 pm: The session commences.

Major highlights (February 21)

4:49 pm: The court adjourns for the day.

4:47 pm: Court rejects Dar and states that, “It is not a public discussion where anyone can speak.”

4:46 pm: Senior advocate AM Dar asks court permission to quote verses from the Quran in response to AG Navadgi.

4:34 pm: The practice must precede the birth of the religion itself. The foundation of religion must be based on that or must be simultaneously there along with the birth of religion. It must be co-extensive with that religion: AG Navadgi.

4:32 pm: The burden rests upon the petitioners to prove that the claim is facthood: AG Navadgi

4:31 pm: Wearing hijab is essential practice is just a claim made by the petitoners: AG Navadgi.

4:23 pm: In the Shayara Bano case, triple talaq was struck down by the SC.

4:21 pm: If the fundamental character of the religion does not change by the abrogation of a practice, such a practice is not an essential part of religion: AG Navadgi quotes Chandrachud.

4:17 pm: Superstitious beliefs cannot be considered an essential religious practice: AG Navadgi

3:53 pm: In Sabari Mala judgment it was observed that “….it is only essential part of religion as distinguished from secular activities which is the subject matter fundamental rights. Superstitious beliefs cannot be considered essential part of religion,” said AG Navadgi

3:38 pm: In Shiroor Mutt case, it was observed that every mundane or human activity was not intended to be protected by Consitution under the guise of religion: AG Navadgi

3:34 pm: Discussing Shiroor Mutt’s case, Senior counsel Kamat argued that food and dress has to be considered part of religion: AG Navadgi

3:33 pm: It has been held that performance of pooja is not an essential practice: CJ Awasthi

3:28 pm: A way of testing essential practice is to see if the religion will be altered if the practice is removed: AG Navadgi

3:25 pm: In order to establish a right, it has to be – first proved as a religious practice, – then an “essential” religious practice. – then that it is not against public order, morality, health – and not against any other fundamental right.

3:19 pm: Justice Chandruchud said, “You have to show that your practice is essential to seek protection under Article 25.” AG Navadgi

3:17 pm: Article 25 will only discuss what is essential: AG Navadgi

3:10 pm: We don’t have to keep religion out of institutions. Just religious instructions. In the current context, religious symbols have to be kept out: AG Navadgi

3:02 pm: People either have a religion or don’t. It matters only if it manifests in practice. As far as conscience is concerned, it applies to people who don’t believe in faith or believe but don’t practice.

3:01 pm: Ambedkar suggested along with Alladi Krishnaswamy Iyer that conscience matters because agnostics and atheists don’t believe in faith: Justice Dixit

2:59 pm: Essential religious practice would not come under freedom of conscience: AG Navadgi

2:58 pm: Is essential religious practice also applicable to conscience?: Justice JM Khazi.

2:51 pm: In the Sabarimalai judgment, Justice Chandrachud observed that the court has to decide on matters of this nature (ie. religious).

2:50 pm: Let us say the institute is before the court, it could be argued that to “maintain institutional discipline it is necessary.” The petitioners would argue it violates Article 25. Hence, Article 25 has to be discussed in detail.

2:49 pm: Can the state government not issue directives to the institutions?

2:47 pm: We need to leave it to the discretion of institutes, that is the government’s stance: AG Navadgi

2:46 pm: As a matter of principle, Preamble of Karnataka education states, “We propose to foster secular image.”: AG Navadgi

2:41 pm: Your argument is that the government hasn’t placed any restrictions, but its the pre-universities decision: CJ Awasthi

2:40 pm: The discussion currently is whether the practice of hijab is embedded in the fundamental rights: Advocate general Navadgi

2:38 pm: The hearing commences.

Major highlights (February 18)

4:43 pm: Some petitioners lawyers express concern over hijab-clad women being made to remove scarf at the gate. They further state, “This was done to avoid a law and order problem but the ban is causing one.”

4:41 pm: “Will substantiate more on why hijab is not religious practice on Monday,” says AG.

4:39 pm: AG argues, “When Ambedkar introduced freedom of conscience in the Assembly, it was to assuage worries that freedom to propagate would result in the supremacy of one religion.”

4:35: “Certainly not sir. Conscience and religion are thus different concepts. Thus both are used in Article 18 of UDHR. Conscience is a choice. No one can be compelled to believe in anything otherwise,” argues AG.

4:34 pm: “You mean to say that the freedom of conscience is only for atheists?” asks Judge Dixit.

4:30 pm: AG Navadgi argues, “Article 25 has two parts: right to preach, practice, and propagate their religion and secondly, freedom of conscience. Rights can be enforced. Your freedom of conscience is your own and a state cannot enforce it. It was used for atheists.”

4:27 pm: Prima facie, the right under Article 25 speaks of abridgement and taking away rights. This (the hijab ban) speaks of regulating and restricting.”

4:22 pm: “During COVID, all religious institutions were closed for reasons of health. In every situation like that we have to discuss if it affects public order, morality or health,” says AG.

4:18 pm: As far as hijab being a religious practice goes, there is a distinction in Article 25 worth pointing out. In Article 25 (2), the state has the power to restrict or regulate any activity. If somebody exercises Article 25 (1), the court has to examine whether this affects public order, morality and health.

4:07 pm: “Whether elected representatives should enter the campus or not is another matter. In these circumstances, the government had to intervene.” said AG in response to a question posed by Justice Krishna Dixit.

4:00 pm: “The attack that the GO is irrational or is discriminatory against Muslim women is baseless as a plain reading of the same affects nobody’s rights,” says AG Navadgi.

3:51 pm: 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.

3:49 pm: The college development council is an extra statutory authority.

3:46 pm: “We have left the decision to college authority. Saying that the hijab ban is the state’s diktat and giving it a communal colour is ridiculous. The government order is innocuous,” says AG.

3:42 pm: “If the state wanted to argue that the hijab would be a threat to communal harmony, they could. But did not,” argues AG.

3:41 pm: “We do not want to involve in these matters. As it is a religious issue,” adds AG.

3:40 pm: AG Navadgi, “We (the State) have taken a conscious stand to let the College Development Council to decide the issue.”

3:38 pm: AG Navagi quotes Justice Dixit saying, “He 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.”

3:33 pm: 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.

3:19 pm: “What is the sanctity of College Development Committee under the scheme of the Act?” asks the bench.

Navadgi responds that “So far as how to locate CDC, I will bring it to Court notice with respect to Karnataka Education Act.”

3:15 pm: Navadgi discusses the uniform code in detail.

3:13 pm: “What is the rationality behind issuing the GO?” asks CJ.

3:07 pm: “Practice of hijab which has now been propounded must pass the test of Constitutional morality and individual dignity. Like it was employed in the Sabarimala case,” adds Navadgi.

3:05 pm: “The petitoners have argued against the government order and in favour of the right to wear hijab under Article 25 and Article 19 1A of Constitution. Mr Hegde and Mr Kamat made these submissions. I disagree and will answer these questions in the negative,” Advocate General Prabhuling Navadgi.

3:04 pm: Advocates for the respondents commence arguing.

2:47 pm: The bench remarks that the public should hear the respondents version as well.

2:43 pm: Senior advocate Ravivarma Kumar requests the court to suspend the live streaming for the case as it could trigger the Muslim women in question.

2:42 pm: Chief Justice remarks that the remaining petitioners wrap up their statements so that the respondents can start.

2:39 pm: The hearing commences.

Major highlights (February 17)

3:41 pm: The court adjourns. It will resume at 2:30 pm tomorrow.

3:29 pm: Advocate General Prabhuling Navadgi requests to be permitted to argue for the State tomorrow. Senior Advocate Sajan Poovayya appearing for Respondent colleges submits that he will argue after the Advocate General

3:26 pm: The court asks for Dar’s locus. He responds, “This is not a PIL. We are girl students studying in colleges and are likely to be affected by GO.”

3:20 pm: Senior advocate AM Dar starts arguing.

3:16 pm: Kulkarni remarks that the “banning hijab” may amount to banning of Quran.

3:13 pm: Lawyer quotes Lata Mangeshkar song “Kuch pakar kuch khona padta hain”.

3:09 pm: “My only request is that at least on Fridays (Jumma) and during Ramzan which is soon approaching, the girls should be allowed to wear hijab. This row is creating mass hysteria,” Lawyer Vinod Kulkarni

3:04 pm: Petition gets dismissed.

2:55 pm: The Bench deliberates on dismissing Kothwal’s petition on the grounds that it is not maintainable.

2:52 pm: “The actions of the state are not in line with the principles stipulated by international conventions,” says Kothwal

2:50 pm: Lawyer Rahmathullah Kothwal begins his statements.

2:49 pm: The hearing commences.

Major highlights (February 16)

4:40 pm: Bench announces that they will resume from tomorrow. The court adjourns.

4:26 pm: Muchhala states, “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.”

4:21 pm: Muchhala further asks, “Why were the parents not consulted before making the decision? What is the need to change clothing now anyway?”

4:19 pm: Muchhala refers to Shayara Bano vs Union of India.

4:13 pm: “Even if they wanted to do away with the hijab, is not reasonable to give the petitioners notice instead of arbitrarily imposing a rule?” asks Muchhala.

4:05 pm: Senior advocate Yusuf Muchhala starts presenting his case in petition number 4.

4:04 pm: Ravivarma Kumar concludes his argument.

4:03 pm: “If people wearing turban can been in the army, why is the hijab a politico-religious symbol sidelined?” asks Kumar.

3:55 pm: “We (the petitioners) are not permitted. We are not ever heard. We are made to stand at the gate. Can these people be called teachers?” adds Kumar.

3:45 pm: “The religion hasn’t been mentioned. They only said that the headscarf is prohibited by any religion,” says CJ Awasti.

3:42 pm: Kumar further asks, “A bangle wearer, a bindi wearer is not sent out of the class. Why only these girls?”

3:40 pm: “If there are hundred symbols, why is the government only picking on one?” questions Kumar.

3:38 pm: “Half or more of Muslims, Hindus and Christians wear religous medals. Most Hindu, Muslim and Sikh women cover their heads,” Kumar quotes from a research paper’s survey.

3:35 pm: “The hall mark of a democracy is to hold the government accountable,” states Kumar.

3:13 pm: Justice Dixit states, “Just because these are not spoken of in Karnataka education 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.”

3:00 pm: The college was constituted to deal with academic standards. Not with students discipline,” states senior advocate for one of the petitioners, Ravivarma Kumar.

2:45 pm: The hearing begins.

Major highlights (February 15)

5:01 pm: The court rejects Adv Tahir’s application, even as he says the petitioner cannot come all the way from Udupi to Bangalore every day.

Proceedings conclude for the day.

5:00 pm: 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.

4:59 pm: A memorandum of facts can be sworn by counsel only on facts that are on record: Navadgi.

4:57 pm: Colleges are reopening tomorrow. I have filed an application yesterday: Kumar

That application is defective. We can’t respond to it: AG Navadgi.

4:54 pm: 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.

4:53 pm: 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.

4: 49 pm: The sum and substance is there is no ban on hijab. The prescription is CDC shall prescribe the uniform: Kumar.

04: 46 pm: Kumar reading out GO

The govt itself has said they have not decided on the uniform but has constituted a high power committee to go into the question: Kumar.

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.

04: 36 pm: Let us first understand the status of the petitioner. Has she filed a memo for withdrawal of the other petition: CJ Awasthi.

Yes: Ravivarma Kumar.

04: 33 pm: Advocate General says he wants to point out a factual aspect. AG says Kumar’s client has filed two petitions.

The same petitioner cannot urge same questions of law based on same facts through another counsel: AG.

04:32 pm: Senior Advocate Ravivarma Kumar commences arguments for Smt. Resham.

04:29 pm: Kamat concludes

04:26 pm: This is not a case of passengers in the train. This is a case of students wanting to access education and State is saying we will not permit you. I raised proportionality in that context: Kamat.

4:23 pm: If a passenger is not allowed inside the train because he does not have a ticket, that is not expulsion: Justice Krishna S Dixit.

4:19 pm: Assuming you have the 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.

4:17 pm: 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.

04:15 pm: Kamat reads out Aruna Roy judgment which spoke about Sarva Dharma Samabhava.

04:10 pm: 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.

4:05 pm: Kamat referring to the judgment of Justice DY Chandrachud wherein he talks about growing intolerance in the context of the West Bengal government stopping the screening of the movie Bhobishyoter Bhoot.

3:45 pm: The Court of South Africa said that display of religion and culture is not a parade of horrible but fragrance of diversity that will only enrich our country: Kamat.

3:41 pm: 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.

3:41 pm: 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.

3:26 pm: Kamat refers to another judgment of the 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.

3:22 pm: 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.

3:15 pm: 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 homework: Kamat.

3:13 pm: If it is sanctioned by our scriptures, Vedas, Upanishads, Your Lordships are duty-bound to protect it. If not Article 25 won’t apply: Kamat.

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 a display of religious identity alone but something more: Kamat.

03: 08 pm: As per the guidance of the Supreme Court, if a religious practice is abhorrent then the State on grounds of public order, health or morality can stop it.

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

3:03 pm: 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.

Neither under Article 25(2)(a) or (b) can ERP be curtailed except under public order, morality or health: Kamat.

3:01 pm: Can essential religious practice be curtailed for reform under Article 25 (2)?

That is answered by the Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin vs The State Of Bombay: Kamat.

2:58 pm: It is categoric that Sarvajanika Suvyavasthe is public order and the use of the same in GO cannot have any other meaning: Kamat.

The second issue that fell from Bench yesterday was why we are going only on Article 25(1) and not Article 25(2).

2:49 pm: 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 the Kannada translation of the Constitution and wherever public order is used, it is Sarvajanika Suvyavasthe: Kamat.

2:40 pm: As Advocate, Kamat argues that Muslim girls of government colleges, that do not have a uniform are being forced to remove their hijab despite the court’s directions that were specific to schools that have a uniform.

CJI Awasthi directs an application for clarification to be filed.

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

Major highlights (February 14)

4:41 pm: The court is adjourned and will resume on February 15 at 2:30 pm.

4:40 pm: The court notes down the list of advocates speaking in favour of the petitioners.

4:26 pm: The government order issued by the state refers to “public order”.

4:25 pm: Bench asks Kamat why he refers to “public order” when the state is yet to present their case.

4:16 pm: “The state should make a conducive atmosphere for the exercise of fundamental rights,” says Kamat.

4:14 pm: Kamat notes, “Freedom enshrined in the Constitution is subject to public order. Public order is state executive and state actors’ responsibility.”

4:08 pm: “Even keeping aside whether the hijab is essential practice, state is duty bound to ensure freedom of conscience,” notes Kamat.

4:05 pm: Since the Quran answers questions regarding the headscarf, we need not go to to any other authority and this would be protected under Article 25 of the Constitution.

3:57 pm: Kamat states that the College Development Committee has no statutory basis as it is formed under circular which does not pass muster for restricting public order.

3:48 pm: Kamat refers to Bjioe Emmanuel case and argued that the present case is totally covered by the judgment in national anthem.

3:43 pm: Kamat notes that he is unaware as he is not a repository of all knowledge. But as of now my research shows, there is no authoritative pronouncement saying it is not an essential practice of Islam.

3:42 pm: Justice Dixit asks whether there are any decisions by court of any other Islamic country other than Malaysia taking a contrary view on hijab as essential to Islam.

3:34 pm: Kamat refers to a Madras High Court judgment which said wearing purdah is not essential but headscarf is. The judgment referred to a Malaysian high court and other Supreme Court judgments.

3:21 pm: Kamat answers affirmatively. “It is my case that the petitioners have been wearing this since our admission to the college. We have mentioned the same in our petition,” he adds. Furthermore, notes Kamat, the students have been wearing the hijab in the same colour as the school uniform.

3:20 pm: Chief Justice Awasthi asks the petitioners lawyer, Devdutt Kamat if the students have been wearing headscarf for a considerable period of time

---

Get the latest updates in Hyderabad City News, Technology, Entertainment, Sports, Politics and Top Stories on WhatsApp & Telegram by subscribing to our channels. You can also download our app for Android and iOS.