A full-bench of the Karnataka High Court will continue hearing a batch of petitions filed by female Muslim students against the ban on wearing hijab by certain Karnataka colleges.The bench comprising Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justices Krishna S Dixit and JM Khazi had earlier passed an interim order, directing students not to wear hijab, saffron shawls (bhagwa) or use any religious flags while attending classes in Karnataka colleges which have a prescribed uniform in the interim.The petitioners had also filed an appeal before the Supreme Court against the interim order but the top court is yet to hear the same.The matter before the High Court was earlier being heard by single-judge Justice Krishna S Dixit who on February 9, referred it to a larger Bench stating that the case involves important issues.Yesterday, Senior Advocate AM Dar appearing for a college student, said that wearing hijab is mandatory in Islam and public order will not be disturbed merely because a Muslim girl wears hijab.At the end of Day 10, the Chief Justice asked counsels to finish their arguments by today, and said judgment will be reserved in the case today.The hearing will resume at 2.30 PM.Read live updates from yesterday's hearing here.Read more on the State’s affidavit before the High Court here.Read more about the petitions before High Court here and here.Live updates from today’s hearing below..We have to rise at 4 pm today. So please finish your arguments by then: Chief Justice (CJ) Ritu Raj Awasthi..Sr Adv. Yusuf Muchhala says he has right to rejoinder. Before Your Lordships take up fresh matters, we would like to argue: Muchhala. We have no objection: CJ Awasthi..Yusuf Muchhala commences his rejoinder arguments. The relief is to quash GO and to permit petitioner to attend college wearing hijab. We have not asked for any general declaration: Muchhala..We have only asked that we should be permitted to cover the head with a piece of cloth. It is not right for the college to prevent us from doing that: Muchhala..The question of essential religious practice cannot be imported from freedom of conscience, it is my bonafide belief: Muchhala. CJ Awasthi: We remember what you have argued, please do not repeat..Muchhala: If your Lordship comes to the conclusion that ERP must be considered then I am in agreement with Mr. Kamat's arguments. .Muchhala refers to pleadings in Statement of Objections filed by State govt. .Muchhala says a passage from Quran has been quoted which says true tradition of Islam enjoins the veiling of hair and neck and modest conduct. This passage has been quoted with approval by govt in its pleadings: Muchhala..Even hadith also says face need not be covered but hijab needs to be worn. This is admitted position. Govt admits this position in its reply: Muchhala..Muchhala relies on Justice Nariman's judgment in Sabarimala case which says Courts should take a common-sense point of view. There is no need to go into details about the different kinds of covering and dress: Muchhala..In Faruqui case, a stray observation was there which says praying in mosque is not essential. Muchhala refers to Ayodhya verdict..Muchhala: The Advocate General said that what is stated in the Koran though obligatory, may not be essential. That is contrary to Shayara Bano..Justice Dixit: You may give a short note on why the decisions relied upon by the State do not support their case, and the State can also do the same. Otherwise this will be endless..CJ Awasthi: These are common judgments on which both sides have relied upon in their own way..Adv Muchhala quotes from Shayara Bano case, the First degree is Fard. Whatever is commanded in the Koran, Hadis or ijmaa must be obeyed. Muchhala concludes his arguments. .Sr Adv Ravivarma Kumar begins rejoinder. .The AG said that the order of delegating power to CDC can be issued under removal of difficulties clause: Kumar. We are not convinced by that at all. So you may move to other points: Justice Dixit..Kumar: Removal of difficulties clause will have no application. Cites Gammon India v. UoI. I am grateful to Court's observation that it is already convinced on non application..Sr. Adv. Poovayya said that the local MLA sharing the power as per CDC is not contrary to the statute. I request the Court to see the composition of the Committee: Kumar..It says the President will be the local MLA of the constituency. Out of the 12 members 11 will be nominated by MLA. I submit this is absolute power given to the MLA. The college is given over on a platter to him: Kumar..Poovayya has argued there is nothing wrong with this, he is a local man. The issue of entrusting a legislative member with executive power is not accepted: Kumar..The GoI introduced a scheme. In Bhim Singh v. Union of India they upheld the scheme because MPs had only recommendatory role and did not have administrative power: Kumar..Kumar reads out Bhim Singh judgment..There is absolutely no accountability for the MLA who functions as an absolute monarch over the college. There is no control over him. Suppose there is misuse of funds and the Committee is responsible, who will hold the CDC accountable: Kumar..Who will take action against whom. That is what is hijacked by the MLA through this exercise done by the Government: Kumar concludes..Petitioner Dr. Vinod Kulkarni begins rejoinder submissions. He says it is undoubtedly and vehemently denied that sporting of hijab is not in the Koran. Justice Dixit: We have read this..It is denied that wearing hijab is against public order, morality and health. He says that disturbance in social fabric is seen because of the ban, refers to recent murder at Shimoga..Banning of hijab in schools and colleges has affected the mental health of Muslim girls, moreso girls who wear the hijab: Kulkarni..Kulkarni: Hijab is sported as a cultural practice and custom for 1400 years. The Indian Constitution is held in the highest regard. Justice Dixit: We will read every paragraph you have written. CJ Awasthi says give to other side also and Court will go through it..Kulkarni requests that students be allowed to wear hijab at least during Ramadan. CJ Awasthi: No occasion for that. We are at the final stage of hearing. We will pass the final order. I will bow down to your verdict: Kulkarni concludes..An advocate who has filed a PIL begins his arguments. CJ Awasthi: Who are you? Advocate says he is a social worker with no personal interest, he has seen the plight of young children who are being chased, photographed and humiliated by the media when going to college..I have filed this PIL to restrain media from shooting children while removing their hijab Pre University college students are in the age group of 16-18. Under POCSO Act and other acts a person less than 18 is a child: Adv. Balakrishna..I can wear a burkha or hijab till the gate of the college, I can move anywhere in the college in these clothes, the interim order is confined only to within the classroom. I can move around, go to canteen, library, playground wearing it: Balakrishna..But reality is they are being forced to remove their scarves even before. There are visuals of girls being chased, when she removes her hijab, the media shoots. This has happened to a teacher also: Balakrishna..CJ Awasthi: What is the material you have to say all this? Balakrishna: I have produced a CD. CJ Awasthi: The video does not show students being chased..Every college. In a college were order does not apply, a policeman goes there and principal restrains the girl who is a child. It is child abuse: Balakrishna. CJ Awasthi: What is your grievance, whom is it against? Balakrishna: The media should be restrained..You have to first establish what wrong media persons are doing. You have to show they are harassing students who wear hijab. There is nothing on record to show that: CJ Awasthi..Balakrishna: The media is overtly or covertly doing this. Students are being humiliated and criminalized, their privacy is involved. There are shots of a teacher removing her burkha. Where is it? CJ Awasthi. This is on the CD: Balakrishna..CJ Awasthi: We cannot play the CD right now. There is no other material. CJ Awasthi: Make a complaint to the authorities. Justice Dixit: There is a child's commission, a women's commission, police. 13 legislations protect women. Make use of it. Not in PIL..Advocate: I have made many representations. CJ Awasthi: Not a single complaint to the police also..Balakrishna: The police are making the victim as accused and accused as victim. CJ Awasthi: Whosoever is aggrieved should make a complaint as prescribed before the appropriate forum. Balakrishna: Please pass an order restraining the media..CJ Awasthi says petition will be dismissed. They can approach the appropriate forum to file complaint..Advocate Tahir begins. CJ Awasthi says this petition has already been argued. CJ says we will finish with fresh petitions..Advocate Subhash Jha begins. He says this petition has been filed by a practicing advocate. It raises important questions on safety, security, integrity of nation. Every person can be said to be aggrieved by what is happening in Karnataka: Subhash Jha..How many years our courts will decide of hijab, burqa, or beard. Starting in 1973, issue of dress code was raised for the first time in UP: Jha..The Allahabad HC laid down emphatically laid down what is the importance of dress code and that has unfortunately been lost sight of subsequently: Jha..In it, a lawyer was not permitted to appear. He was espousing cause of lawyers appearing in dhoti and kurta which was associated with dress possibly of people involved in freedom struggle: Jha.(See here.).In it he said not allowing the same is derogatory to national esteem and Indian culture. But the argument was not countenanced: Jha..Lawyers are all bound by dress code. The matter was also raised by another lawyer in Kerala: Jha..Jha reading out Prayag Das v Civil Judge..Justice Dixit: How these judgments throw light in the issue? We are speaking of uniforms in the school, why are you bringing these cases (on dress code in Courts). CJ Awasthi: You want to emphasise importance of uniform. Jha: Yes My Lord..Jha referring to High Court judgments where hijab was an issue. Refers to Bombay HC judgment..Adv Jha says in every High court this issue has been brought. This is a criminal waste of judicial time: Jha.Jha reading out the judgment..Justice Dixit: The ratio in this judgement is reiterated by Justice Mustaque in 2015 because it is exclusively for a girls school. Jha: No. That is Kerala judgment..At least 2 Courts in India have interpreted Verse 31. This has been read before your Lordships umpteen times. Is it feasible that what was there 1,400 years ago should be applicable in 2022: Jha..It says they should lower their gaze. Is this possible for any woman? When we talk about these dogmas... we are talking about Bharatvarsh, India now. It is really not possible to follow in literal sense every word....: Jha. CJ: This issue we have heard a lot..You have sought direction to CBI, NIA to make thorough investigation with regard to massive agitation all over country and spanning over and impact beyond limits of India after the GO: CJ Awasthi..Is there any material for you to show that agitation is being done or supported by other some outside agencies or organizations? Then kindly show that and we can consider. But other religious and Constitutional issues we have heard both sides: CJ Awasthi..Jha: Let's see how Verse 31 was dealt with in other countries like Malaysia. CJ Awasthi: Let's confine this to our Constitution and not other countries. Come to your first prayer; if you want to press that then argue that..Adv Jha: PFI, SIO, Campus Front of India, Jamaat e Islami which is funded by Saudi Arabia universities Islmalise India and advance radical Islam in India..Your question was quite pertinent, what is the material to show there is involvement of these organizations. The answer is not difficult to fathom: Jha..What happens is that an agitation of this magnitude cannot be created overnight. It is obviously engineered, funded and manufactured, it did not come out of the blue: Jha..Suddenly so many petitions one after another, hiring of senior lawyers across the country: Jha. We cannot go on presumptions: CJ Awasthi..No no, these are I have stated, the social media, the information people have gathered, it is based on material gathered: Jha..One eg. Universities funding Indian organisation has come in the light of one Basheer, a noted journalist. He intercepted some letter on the basis whereof we can infer that this is game plan and sinister design: Jha..CJ Awasthi: Do you have any material to show that there is some organization behind this. Jha: When Court started hearing this, one young boy named Harsha was killed and CFI I am informed is the organisation named in this brutal murder..Awasthi: Investigation is pending and police is doing their work. We cannot draw presumptions..The only requirement in law to register FIR or embarking upon investigation is not even credible info. These is existence of attendant circumstances. Your Lordship may consider calling upon Union of India or Home Ministry as a party. There is a sinister design: Jha..These materials are in galore. There is one Vinod Anna from Andhra Pradesh who has released a video with sufficient material. There is also Mr. Iyer. This is a sinister design: Jha..These outfits, when one organization is banned others are started. A is banned, it starts in the name of C. This is happening it cuts across all Indian territory. It is happening from those people who are in neighbouring country creating trouble all the time: Jha..Pakistan govt for namesake banned A organisation. They start in name of B. And filing of such petitions in regular intervals. How many hours judicial time Court had to spent on this? Jha..Filing of petitions at such regular intervals, once this is stopped there will be another petition in another State. Let there be a declaration: Jha. CJ Awasthi: We have already called for a report from the Govt. We will consider your submissions..Adv Jha refers to judgement from SC of Malaysia. Justice Dixit: You want us to travel to many countries without visa..Sr. Ad AM Dar: Levelling allegations at Senior advocates is very sad. You are attributing things to us. Jha: Let us not go into that..Jha quoting from Malaysian case: "I accept that the Prophet wore a turban. But he also rode a camel, built his house and mosque with clay walls and roof of leaves of date palms, and brushed his teeth with the twig of a plant. Does that make the riding of a camel a more pious deed than travelling in an aeroplane? Is it seemly to use the same materials that the Prophet did when building new houses and mosques now?”.Jha: Islam originated from Saudi Arabia. Look at what is happening there today. 2 years ago they allowed women to drive cars. 1,97,000 women applied for it. Nation first. You must follow the law of the land first: Jha..Adv AM Dar requests for time. CJ Awasthi says he has been heard at length..Adv. Tahir requests for time. CJ Awasthi: Argue it in 5 minutes. We will not continue endlessly..Adv Tahir: This document is fabricated, which the State has relied upon claiming that uniform was prescribed years ago. Sr Adv. Naganand: This is a typographical error. That is what he is pointing out. I filed it. Tahir: Everyone cannot have made the same error..Naganand explains the error. The translation has a typographical error of date, the Kannada version has the right date, he says. Tahir continues..Tahir: It allows blue colour shawl on the shoulders. If anyone prescribes uniform it will not say that. Apart from these docs not a single document has been produced which was chaired by another MLA, they are all of the same MLA..Tahir: They have resolutions of CDC before CDC existed. Naganand: Name has changed. Earlier it was College Betterment Committee. AG: That time it was College Betterment Committee..My submission is there was no such committee. It did not have any power: Tahir..The functions which have been assigned, not even single document has been produced which shows CDC has done that kind of function. Only document relating to uniform has been produced and that too 2018 for the purpose of this case: Tahir..Learned AG has stated that we are seeking a declaration of ERP, and it will be adverse to the interests of Muslim women not wearing the hijab: Tahir..Even if we assume that ERP is declared - Namaaz has been recognized as essential religious practice, but Muslims who don't do it are still Muslims and do not have to do it: Tahir..Tahir: Another argument is on secular institutions. Our institutions are they really secular or not. We have adopted religious practice of all religions which do not cause hindrance to anyone..In a case question before Madras HC, question was raised about Saraswati pooja and Ayudha pooja in govt. office. Court said that as religious activity in a secular institution does not cause any hindrance to others it can be allowed in a secular State: Tahir..Tahir: State argued look at only operational definition, but the circular as a whole is discriminatory. CJ: Nobody has argued on Article 14. This is the first time someone brought it up. Tahir refers to doctrine of indirect discrimination..Uniformity in a secular place, if it is imposed, who will be at loss? Minority will be always at loss. Uniformity in name of secularism, a law is made, it is nothing but brute majority: Tahir..This Court passed an interim order mentioning hijab and shawl. Has anyone complained to this Court that they want to wear saffron shawl: Tahir..The practice observed by Muslim girls was their religious practice and cultural practice. It was not the intention of our Founders that Part III of the Constitution is only applicable in private institution: Tahir..If today the order is passed that school is secular so no headscarf is allowed, tomorrow Govt will say this road is secular, this mall is secular... Article 25 has the word "freely", we can freely exercise our rights: Tahir..AG Prabhuling Navadgi requests for closing remarks. In a separate note we will put across how we made our submissions. On behalf of the Bar we all express our gratitude how patiently you have heard us: AG..CJ Awasthi: All of you my give written submissions including intervenors.