By PTI
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday requested whether or not proper to decorate may even imply proper to undress after a submission was made within the Karnataka Hijab case that proper to freedom of expression underneath Article 19 of the Constitution consists of alternative of costume.
The poser by the apex courtroom got here in the course of the listening to of arguments by the lawyer for one of many petitioners difficult the Karnataka High Court verdict declining to raise the state authorities’s ban on Hijab in instructional establishments of the state.
“You cannot take it to an illogical end,” a bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia mentioned when a earlier judgement of the apex courtroom was cited by senior advocate Devadatt Kamat and an argument raised concerning Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution and the liberty to decorate.
When the bench requested “Will right to dress mean right to undress also?,” Kamat responded to say “no one is undressing in class.
Kamat referred to the Karnataka authorities’s order of February 5, 2022, by which it had banned carrying garments that disturb equality, integrity, and public order in faculties and schools and claimed it’s focusing on just one group.
The order was challenged within the excessive courtroom by some Muslim woman college students.
“It may not be right. Because one community wants to come with a headscarf. Another community is following the dress code,” the bench noticed. Kamat, who additionally referred to “positive secularism”, mentioned the state should train cheap lodging. “Your lordships have accepted the concept of positive secularism.”
Referring to a earlier judgement of the apex courtroom, Kamat argued that secularism doesn’t imply that college students of just one religion is not going to show their non secular id.
The courtroom additionally made it clear that the query within the Karnataka Hijab ban matter is just concerning the restriction in faculties as no one is prohibited from carrying it wherever else they need.
The bench was advised that the matter be referred to a five-judge structure bench.
Kamat argued that if a lady, within the train of her rights underneath Articles 19, 21, or 25 of the Constitution, decides to put on a Hijab, then can the State put a prohibition that may violate her rights.
The bench orally noticed, “The question is nobody is prohibiting you from wearing Hijab. You can wear it wherever you want. The only restriction is in the school. We are only concerned with that question.”
At the outset, Kamat mentioned his endeavour is to influence the bench to contemplate reference of this matter underneath Article 145 (3) of the Constitution.
Article 145 (3) says the minimal variety of judges, who’re to sit down for the aim of deciding any case involving a considerable query of legislation as to the interpretation of the Constitution or for the aim of listening to any reference underneath Article 143, shall be 5.
The senior advocate argued that the bench needs to be happy that it is a case that requires a reference underneath Article 145 (3).
“I endeavour to persuade your lordships to take this course of action,” he mentioned, including this isn’t a matter which is solely associated to a violation of a statute, or a rule.
“This case involves primarily a basic question as to whether the State has failed in its obligation to provide for reasonable accommodation, which is a Constitutional principle adopted by your lordships, for the exercise of a citizens’ rights under Articles 19, 21, and 25,” Kamat mentioned, including that the petitioner just isn’t difficult the prescription of uniform within the faculty.
While Article 19 offers with the safety of sure rights concerning freedom of speech and many others, Article 21 pertains to the safety of life and private liberty.
Article 25 of the Constitution offers with freedom of conscience and free occupation, follow, and propagation of faith.
During the arguments, Kamat referred to a round of the Kendriya Vidyalaya and mentioned it prescribes a uniform and makes an inexpensive lodging for Muslim ladies to put on a headband. He additionally referred to a judgement of the constitutional courtroom of South Africa within the case of a lady who needed to put on a nostril ring in class.
“Whatever little I know, nose pin is not part of any religious practice,” Justice Gupta mentioned, including, “Mangalsutra is, but not the nose ring”.
The bench noticed that all around the world, girls put on earrings and it isn’t a case of non secular follow. “My impression is, no other country has this kind of a diversification as in our country,” Justice Gupta mentioned. When Kamat referred to judgements from the US, the bench requested, “How could we compare USA and Canada with our country?” “We are very conservative,” mentioned the bench, including these judgements are given within the context of their society.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday requested whether or not proper to decorate may even imply proper to undress after a submission was made within the Karnataka Hijab case that proper to freedom of expression underneath Article 19 of the Constitution consists of alternative of costume.
The poser by the apex courtroom got here in the course of the listening to of arguments by the lawyer for one of many petitioners difficult the Karnataka High Court verdict declining to raise the state authorities’s ban on Hijab in instructional establishments of the state.
“You cannot take it to an illogical end,” a bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia mentioned when a earlier judgement of the apex courtroom was cited by senior advocate Devadatt Kamat and an argument raised concerning Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution and the liberty to decorate.
When the bench requested “Will right to dress mean right to undress also?,” Kamat responded to say “no one is undressing in class.
Kamat referred to the Karnataka authorities’s order of February 5, 2022, by which it had banned carrying garments that disturb equality, integrity, and public order in faculties and schools and claimed it’s focusing on just one group.
The order was challenged within the excessive courtroom by some Muslim woman college students.
“It may not be right. Because one community wants to come with a headscarf. Another community is following the dress code,” the bench noticed. Kamat, who additionally referred to “positive secularism”, mentioned the state should train cheap lodging. “Your lordships have accepted the concept of positive secularism.”
Referring to a earlier judgement of the apex courtroom, Kamat argued that secularism doesn’t imply that college students of just one religion is not going to show their non secular id.
The courtroom additionally made it clear that the query within the Karnataka Hijab ban matter is just concerning the restriction in faculties as no one is prohibited from carrying it wherever else they need.
The bench was advised that the matter be referred to a five-judge structure bench.
Kamat argued that if a lady, within the train of her rights underneath Articles 19, 21, or 25 of the Constitution, decides to put on a Hijab, then can the State put a prohibition that may violate her rights.
The bench orally noticed, “The question is nobody is prohibiting you from wearing Hijab. You can wear it wherever you want. The only restriction is in the school. We are only concerned with that question.”
At the outset, Kamat mentioned his endeavour is to influence the bench to contemplate reference of this matter underneath Article 145 (3) of the Constitution.
Article 145 (3) says the minimal variety of judges, who’re to sit down for the aim of deciding any case involving a considerable query of legislation as to the interpretation of the Constitution or for the aim of listening to any reference underneath Article 143, shall be 5.
The senior advocate argued that the bench needs to be happy that it is a case that requires a reference underneath Article 145 (3).
“I endeavour to persuade your lordships to take this course of action,” he mentioned, including this isn’t a matter which is solely associated to a violation of a statute, or a rule.
“This case involves primarily a basic question as to whether the State has failed in its obligation to provide for reasonable accommodation, which is a Constitutional principle adopted by your lordships, for the exercise of a citizens’ rights under Articles 19, 21, and 25,” Kamat mentioned, including that the petitioner just isn’t difficult the prescription of uniform within the faculty.
While Article 19 offers with the safety of sure rights concerning freedom of speech and many others, Article 21 pertains to the safety of life and private liberty.
Article 25 of the Constitution offers with freedom of conscience and free occupation, follow, and propagation of faith.
During the arguments, Kamat referred to a round of the Kendriya Vidyalaya and mentioned it prescribes a uniform and makes an inexpensive lodging for Muslim ladies to put on a headband. He additionally referred to a judgement of the constitutional courtroom of South Africa within the case of a lady who needed to put on a nostril ring in class.
“Whatever little I know, nose pin is not part of any religious practice,” Justice Gupta mentioned, including, “Mangalsutra is, but not the nose ring”.
The bench noticed that all around the world, girls put on earrings and it isn’t a case of non secular follow. “My impression is, no other country has this kind of a diversification as in our country,” Justice Gupta mentioned. When Kamat referred to judgements from the US, the bench requested, “How could we compare USA and Canada with our country?” “We are very conservative,” mentioned the bench, including these judgements are given within the context of their society.