Hijab Row: Referring to Hijab controversy from Africa to Turkey, know 10 big arguments of the lawyers of the girls in the hearing Feb 15th 2022, 13:50, by Editorial During the hearing, senior advocate Devdutt Kamat said that I present the remaining arguments. When he presented his arguments, the Advocate General of Karnataka opposed his statements. Girls wearing hijab in Karnataka (PTI) The petitions challenging the ban on hijab in educational institutions were heard in the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday. However, the decision could not be taken even in this hearing. During the hearing, lawyer Shadan Farasat referred to an application in the matter. He said that whenever required I will help my lord. The lawyer said that I have filed an affidavit in the court, which states that the state is misusing the orders of this court. Students are being forced out and the state government is grossly misusing the rights. During the hearing, senior advocate Devdutt Kamat said that I present the remaining arguments. When he presented his arguments, the Advocate General of Karnataka opposed his statements. Know 10 big things of today's hearing -
The petitioners' counsel Kamat said that the state has objected to our translation of the government order. There is a conflict over the translation of 'Sarvajanika Suvisthe'. The state said it could have more meaning. It does not mean public order. - Kamat said that and if this is the essence then neither under Article 25(2)A or B, it cannot be reduced. Certainly subject to public order, morality etc. The words used are the consciousness of liberty and the right to practice religion. What emerges from this decision guides the state to regulate a harmful practice. How is the state supposed to use this power? There has been some amount of guidance on this. It (wearing the hijab) is not a practice to display religious identity, it is a matter of a sense of security and faith.
-
Senior advocate Devdutt Kamat said that I have obtained the official translation of the Constitution of India into Kannada. The Kannada translation of the constitution uses the same word for public order in every provision as in the government order. - On this, the High Court said that we are interpreting the order given by the government, not the words used for it. The established legal position is that when certain words are used in a government order, they cannot be equated with those used in law.
- On this, Kamat said that I submit that the words used in the government order cannot have two meanings. It means only public order. Public order has been used 9 times in the constitution.
- During the hearing, the counsel for the petitioners sought clarification from the Karnataka High Court on the order of the government. Advocate Kamat said that a person cannot be questioned on his religious beliefs by the state or any other person. Thus, he has full right to practice and propagate his religion.
- During the hearing, Kamat referred to the 2004 Sunali Pillay vs Durban Girls High School case in South Africa. The school had said that girls should not be allowed to wear 'traditional jewelry in the nose' as it would interfere with the code of conduct in the school. However, the student claimed that it was her constitutional right.
- He said that the verdict said that it is not about the dress. It's about whether certain people should be exempted from some of the rigors of dress. Hijab is not an exemption either. This is an edition only.
- Lawyer Kamat quoted South Africa's decision as saying, "The possibility of abuse should not affect the rights of those who have an honest faith."
-
Advocate Kamat said that our constitution follows positive secularism. This is not like Turkish secularism, which is negative secularism. He said that our secularism ensures that the religious rights of all are protected. At the same time, now the matter will be heard tomorrow. , The post Hijab Row: Referring to Hijab controversy from Africa to Turkey, know 10 big arguments of the lawyers of the girls in the hearing appeared first on News NCR. |