Bengaluru: emphasizes that the doctrine of “Heckler’s Veto” cannot be applied to limit fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution of public orders.
Continuing his argument before the full bench of the Karnataka High Court heard a number of petitions, KAmat, representing two girls from Kundapur College, said that the state could not stop him from going out on the road just because other people did not like it (kamat), and added that his fundamental rights Cannot be locked up by the doctrine of Veto Heckler.
Calculating his personal experience, Kamat told the court that he used to wear Rudraksha when at school and felt a level of protection and certain relationships with the creator.
“Lawyers and judges use certain names.
This is not the appearance of religious identity.
This is the practice of faith.
Article 25 protects it.
To fight that no one wore a scarf,” he said.
According to him, if the state says that if someone wearing a headscarf can cause problems and therefore cannot be permitted, such an argument is not permitted.
KAmat also quoted the assessment by Chandrachud Chief Justice, where the top court judge had referred to the growing intolerance in the country.
Kamat argues that Indian secularism is positive basically when compared to turkey and says that the state must play the role of an enabler.
He said that wearing a headscarf is a non-dangerous practice and not just the appearance of religious and jingoism and the essence of Article 25 protects the practice of faith.
According to him, unlike Article 19 where there is a concept of reasonable restrictions, there is no such concept under Article 25 and the State cannot venture to define and limit the same thing through February 5, 2022 circular by quoting public order words.
The court will continue the audience on Wednesday.