AG Navadgi argued that the GO was innocuous in nature and does not affect any of the petitioners’ rights. He added that the State was not directly interfering in the issue, and only took the stand that what uniform the CDC has prescribed, should be followed.
“The draftsman (of the GO) has become enthusiastic and said public order…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,” he said.
Chief Justice Awasthi then asked,
“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?”
The AG maintained that the State has consciously kept itself away from the issue.
“So if the CDC permits students to wear hijab, you have no objection?” the Court asked. Navadgi replied,
“State has revisionary powers under Section 131. If in future some student or authority has a grievance that it might result in something, we may or may not take a decision.”
CJ Awasthi then asked,
“Wasn’t the GO premature? On one hand you are saying a High Level Committee is to be constituted, then on the other hand you issue these GOs.”
“The government, considering exigencies, issued these orders under Section 133 (of Karnataka Education Act). These are unusual situation which came up,” was the AG’s response.
The AG took the Court through the provisions of the Karnataka Education Act. Referring to Section 133, which gives the State government the power to issue directions to any educational institution, the AG said,
“None of the colleges have come before Court saying this is without authority. Students have come before the Court saying that it is without authority. The challenge should fail on that ground alone.”
As regards the composition of the CDC, the AG said that it was representative body and that there was no restriction on a Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) being a part of it.
Source: Barandbench
