Karnataka High Court concludes hearing in hijab case, reserves order

Bengaluru, Feb 25: The Karnataka High Court concluded the hearing related to the 'hijab' (scarf) case on Friday, but reserved its order. "Heard. Order reserved," Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi said.

The court asked the petitioners to file written submissions, if any, before the Bench. The Bench, constituted on February 9 and comprising the Chief Justice, Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Jaibunnisa M Khazi, heard on a day-to-day basis over the last two weeks a batch of petitions filed by some girls seeking permission to wear the hijab in educational institutions where a uniform has been prescribed.

The girls were allegedly denied entry into a pre-university college for girls in Udupi in December last for violating the dress code. On January 1, six girl students attended a press meet held by the Campus Front of India (CFI) protesting against denial of entry into classrooms as they were wearing the hijab.

This prompted the boy-students to wear saffron shawls in protest. As the issue of hijab versus saffron scarves spread to several educational institutions in many parts of Karnataka since then, the State government announced a holiday from February 9 to February 15 in all the pre-university colleges and from February 9 to February 16 in degree and diploma colleges.

In its interim order, the Bench asked the government to re-open the educational institutions, which were hit by the agitation, and restrained students from wearing religious attire till the court issues the final order.

"The institution did not have any rule on hijab-wearing since no one used to wear it to the classroom in the last 35 years. The students who came with the demand had the backing of outside forces," the principal of a college said. 

On Feb 23

Bengaluru, Feb 23: The High Court hearing on the hijab row entered the ninth day on Tuesday, with a 3-judge bench presiding over the matter. 

17:11pm
Matter adjourned to Feb 24

Following are govt's arguments:

>> 17:03pm
If a uniform is prescribed it has to be followed: CJ

16:52pm: Why do women need to 'dress modestly' if rule of law is upheld?, argues Poovayya

16:42pm: For a secular activity, one cannot wear religious manifestations: Poovayya

16:28pm: Allowing Islamic headscarf in educational institution will amount to discrimination between Muslims, non-practicing Muslims and non-believers:Poovayya quotes fromLEYLA ŞAHİN v. TURKEY, a Turkish decision which upheld restriction on wearing Hijab in a higher educational situation.

16:19pm: School's duty to ensure a minor girl is not 'shackled' to a practice: Poovayya
Till December the students did not insist on wearing hijab, says Poovayya.School's duty to ensurea minor girl is not 'shackled' to a practice. The decision whether to wear a Hijab is on them when they attain majority, he says.

16:10pm: Education in this country, especially with Central aid, is purely a secular activity: Poovayya
No religion instruction shall be provided in any educational institution wholly maintained out of State funds,Poovayya argues."If the State which maintains a College cannot impart any religious instruction there, can it be also read to mean there can be no religious manifestation in that institution?""In other words, can a person getting public education insist he or she has to wear wear religious attire, even assuming they have established that it is an essential religious practice?'

"Even if it is an essential religious practice, it has to yield in a public institution", he says.

16:03pm: Right to wear religious attire is amenable to Article 25, not Article 19. It is not an Article 19 right, says Poovayya

15:57 pm: The circular of govt of 2014 has not been challenged: Poovayya
"It did not outsource education functions to any politician. This college isfunded by the Govt", saysPoovayya."The CDC was constituted to provide welfare of the institution in tune with the local requirements. The Committees are not necessarily headed by MLAs of party in power", he added.

15:55 pm: Srivatsa concludes his submissions by saying European Courts have upheld State decisions on restricting the hijab
 

>> In India we have Article 25 (1) starts with a restructive clause. In America and Australia, the freedom is virtually unrestricted. There is an injunction against the State to not make laws on religious issues: Srivatsa

>> You may follow a particular religion, but practices, customs of other religions can get integrated to your own: Defendant "For instance,among Christians, mangalsutra is not there but in Kerala among Christians it is there. They have assimilated it", saysNaganand.

Naganand refers to a judgment on allowing Sikh person to wear kirpan. In Article 25(2), explanation is given allowing kirpan, he adds.

Naganand refers to Allahabad HC judgment which held that use of loudspeaker was not an integral part of azaan in mosques.

Naganand refers to a decision where the Court said No to an argument by Hindus that bursting of crackers was necessary for a festival.

Naganand: No fundamental right is absolute. Article 25 starts with "subject to". My right for peaceful existence cannot be threatened by somebody saying I want to exercise my religious rights. SC has said in many decisions.

Naganand: Authority of the school cannot be belittled., The school has to maintain discipline in classroom. If decision is taken bonafide, and it is not questioned for around 18 years... this uniform rule has been there since 2004.

Naganand: In orthodox Brahmin sections, after upanayanam, a boy is not supposed to wear shirts, only angavasathram. If tomorrow a category of boys say that want to come like this, what will happen? School has to maintain the discipline.

Naganand: In the present case school has done that it has said that it is in the interest of everybody that child will not wear hijab or head scarves.

Naganand: These are parental rights in the welfare of the child, it is not that parent is punishing the child to get satisfaction from it. The authority exercised by teachers over students are also parental rights.

Naganand: If I have a child at home, 10 years old, he is misbehaving. I tell him don't do this. Child does not listen and throws things at the parents. If the parent is patient he will cajole the child. If he continues, then the parent will berate the child, and might say will slap

Naganand: In an education institution, the body which has taken a decision by a democratic body, for public order, maintaining good relation uniform dress should be worn, it is public order.

Naganand: Constitution makers wanted a person to have his own freedom of thought process. So freedom of conscience.

Naganand: Freedom of conscience is, Conscience, is that voice which we hear from the recesses of our heart... Freedom of conscience means. What your heart tells you.

Naganand : Violation of Article 25 is debated. Govt has not prescribed, it has said insitution take decision. In our case institution has taken decision (for uniforms) since 2004.

Naganand submits that the petition is not supported by a proper affidavit. Mother has verified the affidavit though petitioner is a major.

"I am not raising this as a technical ground. How does mother know what happened in class and to other students in the class"

Uniform is compulsory since 2004, argues Karnataka govt in HC

Naganand: Not rewarding them internal marks? To which student it was done? Only bald allegations. They have also introduced a false allegation that since September 2021, petitioners faced discrimination, in their classes. I have denied it.

Naganand: They say teachers were scolding etc. These are serious allegation, the petitioners have not subnstantiated it. They say the threat was to mark them absent. Yes if they dont attend class they will be marked absent. What threat?

Naganand: One more allegation is that we were scolding the students. We are teachers for many years and they treat students like their kith and kin. I deny the allegations.

Naganand: Some teachers were also threatened by their organisation. They were scared to lodge a complaint. A complaint was lodged yesterday by one of the teachers

Naganand: After refusing, students behaved rashly. CFI has been coordinating the protests.

Naganand: On December 30, 2021, persons from Campus Front of India, this is a radical organisation, approached the authorities and insisted on allowing wearing of hijab

Karnataka High Court begins hearing on various petitions challenging the ban on hijab in educational institutes in the state.
 

On Feb 22

>> Karnataka HC hearing over hijab ban in educational institutes ends for today.

>> A right cannot be exercised in isolation in public spaces, says AG
AG argues,"A right cannot be exercised in isolation in public spaces. Institutional discipline is paramount."

>> No prohibition of hijab, but can't be compulsory: AG
AG says, "There is no prohibition of hijab anywhere. But it cannot be compulsory, it should be left to the choice of the women concerned."

>> There can't be religious sanction by way of judicial declaration: AG
Karnataka AG argues, "Choice to wear, every women of every faith has that choice...There cannot be a religious sanction by way of judicial declaration. This is not for college or school but entire community."

>> AG quotes Ismail Faruqui case (that dealt with Babri Masjid property acquisition) which held that offering namaz in a Mosque is not a fundamental principle

>> Restriction on wearing hijab not in institution but only in classroom during class hours, says AG

>> Right to wear hijab can be claimed under Art 19 (1) a, but can be restricted in Art 19 (2): AG

>> Wearing of headscarf permitted in country but subject to institutional discipline, argues AG

>> Hijab optional, not compulsory; hence not essential religious practice, AG tells bench

>> Counsel mentions PIL about hijab-clad students being chased by mediapersons in schools, colleges; urges HC to hear matter

On Feb 21

Bengaluru, Feb 21: The High Court hearing on the hijab row entered the seventh day on Monday, with a 3-judge bench presiding over the matter. Meanwhile, Bengaluru Police Commissioner Kamal Pant extended prohibitory order in wake of the hijab row protests till March 8.

High Court adjourns hearing till 2:30 pm on Feb 22

>> "In a case like this, where you want to bind every Muslim women, and which can gives rise to religious sentiments and division, you should have shown more circumspection to lay a foundation," says AG

>> The petitioners have sought a declaration that every woman who follows Islam religion is required to wear the hijab, they want a declaration which can bind every Muslim women: AG

>> AG presents five principles for the case
AGsays, From a reading of these cases, I would carve out five principles for the present case:
1.The practise must be fundamental to the religion.
2 If the practise is not followed, it will change the religion itself.
3. Practice must precede the birth of religion.
4. Foundation of religion must be based on that. It must be co-existent with the religion.
5.Binding nature. If it is optional, then it is not essential. If wearing of it is not obligatory, then it is not essential.

>> AG quotes from Triple Talaq case : A practice claimed to be essential must be mandatory and not optional

>> AG reads the conclusions in Triple Talaq case
1. Views of religious denomination, though significant are not determinative in essentiality of practice.
2. Courts have central role.

>> AG says that judgment in Kureshi case regarding cattle sacrifice is also relevant in the case.

>> If it is shown that wearing Hijab is essential to religious pracitce, they pass SC's tests

>> The shift in judicial approach took place when ‘essentially religious’ (as distinct from the secular) became conflated with ‘essential to religion': AG

>> AG quote Justice Chandrachud during Sabrimala on Article 25
"What constitutes the essential part of a religion is primarily to be ascertained with reference to the doctrines of that religion itself" - this sentence in previous judgment, see how Justice Chandrachud explains and distinguishes: AG

>> Article 25 has different sections. To establish right under Article 25, they should first prove religious practise, then that it is an essential religious practice, then that ERP does not come in conflict with public order, morality or health or any other: AG

>> We want to divorce religion from personal law. We are in a stage where we must unify our nation without interfering with religious practice. Religion must be restricted to spheres which are religious: AG quotes Munshi

>> "Religion must be restricted to spheres which legitimately appertain to religion, and the rest of life must be regulated, unified and modified in such a manner that we may evolve, as early as possible, a strong and consolidated nation," addsAG quoting Munshi

>> AG lists three tests to check if a practice is 'essential religious practice'
According to AG, there are three tests to check if a practice is 'essential religious practice'"Is this part of core belief? Is this practice fundamental to that religion?. If that practice is not followed, will the religion cease to exist," AG said, according to Live Law.

>> Claims of Article 26 for practices not essential to religion must be carefully scrutinised: AG quotes Dargah committee judgement

>> AG quotes from Dargah committee judgment: "Unless such practices are found to constitute an essential and integral part of a religion their claim for the protection under Art. 26 may have to be carefully scrutinised"

>> Article 25 protects essential religious practices, not religion: AG

>> AG quotes B R Ambedkar, argues that religion must be kept out of educational institutions

On Feb 18

Bengaluru, Feb 18: Karnataka High Court concludes for the day. Today was the 6th day of hearing. HC adjourns the hearing till February 21

>> AG makes submissions on the government stand that wearing hijab is not an essential religious practice
"The way the petitioners have put it across is as if wearing hijab is an essential religious practice that doesn’t come in the way of public order, morality, or health and is an innocuous practice. I request you to please refer to Article 25(1), argues AGNavadgi.

"In the event of a conflict, the first test is the religious practice will give way to the three things in Article 25(1) and the second test is to find out whether it conflicts with other fundamental rights," AG said.

>> The claim that GO discriminates against Muslim women has communal basis, all of it are absolutely without basis, argues AG Navadgi

>> Advocate General representing the Karnataka government argues the state governmenthas ordered that the students should wear uniforms prescribed by colleges.
"The state government does not want to intervene in religious matters," he adds.

>> "In the event that the CDC does not fix a uniform, students should wear a dress that is equal, decent. The draftsman has become enthusiastic and said public order," saysAG Navadgi
"We have given all powers to College Development Council (CDC) to decide the issue," he said adding, "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."

>> AG argues that the state has neither proscribed nor prescribed hijab but asked students to follow college council's order

>> For colleges, especially PUC colleges, the govt ordered that those under the state government must wear the uniforms prescribed by the College Development Committee, AG says
AG argues that the GO did not mean 'public order' but simply referred to the idea of 'public decency'

>> AG argues that the resolution of the circular maintained that continuing with the students' education was of utmost importance.
The institution again issued another resolution in the backdrop of the unrest. This reiterates the same thing, except that it makes a positive assertion that children should not wear the hijab. It subtly informed that students from other communities are studying in the college.
The concern of the committee is seen in that, AG argues

>> AG argues that uniform prescribed in 2018 and there was no issue till December 2021, till a group of students approached the principal and insisted that they will enter the college only with hijab.
After this insistence, the CDC chaired by the MLA and members on 01.01.2022 to examine the issue, he says

>> The AG argues for the legality of the Government Order dated 05.02.2022
There was a resolution of the College Development Committee, to change the uniform of the girl students. The endeavor is to show that there was a prescription on uniform in the year 2013-14, AG argues

>> On establishing the sanctity of the the CDC
On whether the circular issued by government on how College Development Committee came into existence, its membership, being questioned/ opposed, the AG says 'no'.

>> AG argues that the practice of wearing hijab must pass the test of Constitutional morality and individual dignity as expounded by the Supreme Court in the Sabrimala and Shayara Bano (Triple Talaq) cases

>> AG argues that Govt Order dated Feb 5th is in consonance with the Education Act
AG states the key contentions:
1. Govt Order dated Feb 5th: My first submission is that the order is in consonance with the Education Act.
2. Practice of wearing hijab: We have taken the stand that wearing of hijab does not fall within the essential religious practise of Islam
3. This right to wear hijab can be traced to Article 19 (1) (a). Submission is that it does not do so

>> Advocate General Prabhuling Navadgi begins submissions for the State

On Feb 17

>> CJs tell counsel that all details of petitioners including who is studying in which college and how they are affected must be in the petition

>> "You are wasting the court's precious matter, this is a Special Bench," the bench says

>> Chief Justices dismiss Sr Counsel Dar's petition as withdrawn (as it misses details) with liberty to file petition afresh

>> Adv A M Dar makes submissions for petitioner. He says that the govt order itself is unconstitutional

>> Dr Kulkarni urges Lordships and Her Ladyship to pass an interim order today

>> Adv A M Dar makes submissions for petitioner. He says that the govt order itself is unconstitutional

>> CJ Awasthi asks Dr Kulkarni to establish his argument from the Quran when he says among the 5 sacred duties for a Muslim, the Holy Koran says that Muslim women should sport hijab and not expose their body parts like head, neck, etc.

>> Quran cannot be ignored, hijab is not against public order, health or morality: Kulkarni argues, citing a former judgment

>> Dr Vinod Kulkarni makes submissions
"This hijab issue is creating a hysteria and is affecting the mental health of Muslim girls," Kulkarni says. Kulkarni refers to Lata Mangeshkar song "kuch Pakar kuch khona hai..." and asks for interim relief to at least let the girls wear the hijab on Friday (day of jumma)
CJs meanwhile examine the PILs

>> Adv Rahamathulla Kotwal now making submissions.

>> Kotwal submits that apart from Articles 14, 15 and 25, the State's action also violates Article 51(c) -foster respect for international law and treaty obligations. Kotwal refers to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

>> Court asks Kothwal to show bonafidees and relevant documents or they will dismiss the petition

>> Bench dismisses the Kotwal's PIL
Kotwal says, "I have filed many petitions and this is the first time my petition has been dismissed on grounds of maintainability"

"New rules have been made after your petitions have been filed," CJ Dixit responds

Details awaited.
 

On Feb 16

Court adjourned, hearing to resume at 2:30 pm on Feb 17

Why not consult those affected before implementing universal uniform, asks counsel

Purpose of Karnataka Education Act is to promote harmony, not create dissent; where is the need to object an accepted practice? argues counsel

Why are Muslim girls who conscientiously believe that they should wear headscarf be put to a Hobson's choice regarding education and faith? Is it fair?: Muchhala

Does not matter if wearing of hijab is an Essential Religious Practice under Article 25, protecting belief is important: Sr Adv Muchhala

Prof Ravivarma Kumar resumes his submissions. He is referring to the Education Act.

Why is just the hijab being targeted, and not turban worn by Sikhs or crucifix worn by Christians? argues counsel Ravivarma Kumar.

Counsel urges judges to consider discrimination against hijab-clad girls as a humanitarian case

The counsel now refers to a research paper based on a survey on religious symbols and clothing. It states that "many Indians display the religion through attire. Half of Hindus and Muslims majority of Christians say they generally wear a religious pendants. Most Hindu, Muslim, Sikh women cover their head outside the home." To this, Justice Dixit seeks to know the authenticity of the paper.

The arguments so far relate to establishing the fact whether or not the conduct of the state government in delegating to the CDC to decide whether to allow headscareves or not is "totally legal".

The counsel argues that the CDCs consists of MLAs. However, he adds that MLAs cannot be given administrative powers. He quotes a 2015 incident when local MLAS were given administrative powers at a committee constitued by the government. This was later challenged and the order was stayed.

The counsel argues that the CDC is to be constitued for the purpose to utilise the grants and maintain educational standards and its has no police power over students. He adds that uniform cannot be related to academic standards.

Counsel says that Section 143 of the Act deals with delegation to autorities under the Act. He adds that the CDCs are constituted by a circular in 2014 and not an order.

Justice Dixit says that even though the guidelines do not prohibit wearing of hijab, rule 9 grants the institutions the power to prohibit.

Counsel reads the GO and says "there us a direct indictment against those coming in hijab". He adds that as per the GO, in colleges coming under the jurisdiction of the PU board, students should wear uniform as per the CDC decision. 

As per the Education Act, educational institutions should give one-year notice in advance to parents for change in uniform, says senior advocate.

Counsel presents guidelines presecribed for PU colleges and argues that the rules does not prescribe any uniform. Neither the Education Act nor the guidelines issued by the department for PU colleges prohibits wearing of hijab, the counsel says.

Educational institutions should give 1-year notice for change in uniform, says advocate

On February 15

Bengaluru, Feb 15: The full bench of the Karnataka high court comprising chief justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justices Krishna S Dixit and JM Khazi resumed hearing on writ petitions pertaining to the hijab ban controversy today. 

Hearing in the Karnataka hijab row matter to continue in the high court tomorrow.

Advocate Ravivarma Kumar commences arguments for petitioner Resham.

Kumar: We are not violating any public order, equality or unity.

Kumar: Kindly take note of the fact there is no ban of wearing hijab by any student much less by religious minority community. GO says CDC will prescribe it. Till then, clothes which do not threaten public order, equality or unity must be worn, it say

Kumar: There is no prohibition in wearing the hijab even in the GO.

Kumar: Kindly mark this Govt is yet to take a decision on the uniform dress code. It is to constitute a high-level committee.  As of now Govt has not prescribed any uniform or prohibited the wearing of hijab.

Advocate Devadatt: This order in effect suspends fundamental rights. Kindly do not continue this interim order. 

Kamat concludes his submissions. Expresses gratitude to the bench for patient hearing and to his associates who helped him in research.

Kamat: I respectfully submit that the sweep of your lordships order is extremely board and it is in the teeth of Article 25 and other rights. Kindly make some leeway. In the meanwhile permit us to wear the head scarf in addition to uniform. Consideration will take time.

Kamat submits that the Education Act has no provision to expel a student for not adhering to uniform. 

"If you are expelled for an extra attire, doctrine of proportionality will come in", Kamat submits.

Kamat: This is an innocuous practise of wearing head scarf and not changing my uniform. This is a facet of freedom of speech and expression. If small exemption is given to wear headscarf, it will be in line with right to freedom of speech and expression.

Kamat: State says we are a secular state, we are not Turkey milords. Our Constitution provides positive secularism and all faiths have to be recognised.

Kamat quotes from SC judgment in Aruna Roy case - Our secularism is from a Vedic perspective "Sarva Dharma Sama Bhava"

Kamat: When your lordships passed the order last day, probably your lordships had secularism in mind. But our secularism is not Turkey secularism. Ours is positive secularism. We recognise all religions as true.

"If I go on street, and somebody stops saying he does not like Devdatt Kamat, then State cannot stop me from going to the street saying it will create public order issue".

Kamat: If the state says if somebody wears a head scarf and it will lead to galata, therefore we cannot allow it, that is an impermissible argument.

Kamat refers to a SC judgment authored by Justice Chandrachud which makes a mention about growing intolerance.

Kamat : State cannot create a facile argument that public order is disrupted and it has to create a positive environment facilitating enjoyment of rights.

Kamat says he will give a written note about the judgments. CJ says that will be better. Kamat says the Canada judgment permitted a Sikh student to wear Kirpan to school.

"The display of religion and culture in public is not a “parade of horribles” but a pageant of diversity which will enrich our schools and in turn our country", Kamat quotes from SA judgment.

'Students have been wearing hijab and are following school discipline'
This is what the Chief Justice asked me, whether they have been wearing the headscarves. Yes, they have been wearing and the students were following the school discipline: Kamat

Kamat: If it is the essence of the religion, neither under Articles 25(2)(a) or (b) it can be curtailed. Subject to of course public order, morality or health.

Kamat quotes from the judgment - "laws providing for social welfare and reform not intended to enable the legislature to reform a religion out of existence or identity"

Kamat : Yesterday I was asked whether reform in Article 25(2) can apply to an essential religious practice. That is answered by the Supreme Court (1962) 2 SCR 496.

Kamat is referring to "Sardar Syedna Taher" case in which the Supreme Court struck down a Bombay law which prohibited ex-communication from a community on petitions by Bohra members. SC said, if this is an essential practice, it must be upheld.
    
Kamat reads Article 25 in Kannada. Points out the use of "sarvajanik suvyavasthe" in that Article for "public order". Kamat : Very categorically sarvajyanik suvyavasthe means public order and it cannot have a different meaning. I rest my case there.

Kamat : If the State has used the word in Constitution the word has to be given the same meaning. Public order as per Constitution in Kannada is "Sarvayanik suvyavaste". Interestingly, this is used 9 times in Constitution.
    
Kamat seeks to make a clarification regarding the translation of the Kannada GO, which was in dispute yesterday.

Advocate General: The affidavit is vague. Let them come with proper application and we will respond. The affidavit is not filed by any petitioner.

Adv Mohammed Tahir: The order passed by court is misued by the state. Muslims girls are forced to remove their hijab. In Gulbarga govt officials went to an Urdu school and forced the teachers and students to remove hijab.

More details to follow

Devadatt Kamat’s arguments on February 14

>> I am not only challenging the government order, but asking for a positive mandate for allowing to wear a headscarf of the same colour of the uniform.

>> Wearing headscarves is an essential practice of the Islamic faith
 
>> The last submission which I want to make is even I need not go as far deep into essential religious practice at all. Because essential religious practice theory comes in when practice of fundamental rights of religious violates someone else fundamental rights

>> The high court asks advocate Kamat whether what all stated in Quran is essential religious practice?Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat says, "I am not saying that".

>> Advocate Devadatt Kamat : I am not only challenging the government order, but asking for a positive mandate for allowing me to wear a a headscarf of the same colour of the uniform.

>> Advocate Devadatt Kamat: I would not like to comment on larger issues whether every tenet mentioned in Holy Quran is essential religious practice. For the purpose of this case, hijab is essential.

>> Advocate Devadatt Kamat : This is not a case where students are insisting for a different uniform. They are only saying they will cover the head with the same colour of the uniform that is prescribed.

>> Advocate Devadatt Kamat submits that allowing hijab for Muslim students is a national level practice. Allowance for Sikhs students' head gear is also there. This is in alliance with Article 25, he adds.

>> This Court has to examine the dress code prescribed for women in Islam and; such prescription is an essential part of the religion or not; and if it forms part of essential religious practice, can it be regulated under Article 25(1): Advocate Devadatt Kamat quotes from Kerala HC judgment.

>> The whole idea of Quranic injunctions and Hadiths is to reduce the rights and obligations to formulate certain standards of behaviour of individuals in his conduct in obedience to the commands of the God : Advocate Devadatt Kamat quotes from Kerala HC judgment.

>> Advocate Devadatt Kamat claims that February 5,2022 circular/ government order issued by the state government fixing dress code, gives an erroneous finding that wearing of Hijab is not protected under Article 25 of the constitution. He further claims as illegal, the decision of the state government to leave the uniform issue to respective College Development Committees, whom he described as third parties.