Appearing on behalf of a clutch of petitioners who challenged the ruling of thehigh court that hijab was not an essential practice in and students should adhere to uniforms prescribed by educational institutions, senior advocate contended that the Karnataka government’s order was ‘not innocuous’, as contended by the state. He argued that the order violated the fundamental rights under Articles 19, 21 and 25 of the .
The right to freedom of expression included the freedom to dress though they had to be reasonable restrictions on the right, he said. Kamat contended that the right to freedom of expression under Article 19 of the Constitution included dress.
To this, Justice Hemant Gupta retorted “you cannot take it to illogical ends. Right to dress will include the right to undress also?” Kamat responded: “Nobody is undressing in a school. The question is wearing of this additional dress as part of Article 19, can it be restricted?”