'Why Not Turban, Bindi': Petitioners Ask Karnataka HC During Hijab Row Hearing | How It Happened

Hijab row: Section 144 has been imposed in Bagalkot, Bangalore, Chikkaballapura, Gadag, Shimoga, Tumkur, Mysore, Udupi, and Dakshina Kannada. Meanwhile, the uproar over the hijab continues in many government schools in Karnataka.

Hijab wearing students in Karnataka. (File photo: AFP)

New Delhi: Karnataka High Court heard the petitions challenging the hijab ban in educational institutions with petitioners making entries on the fourth day of the hearing. Senior advocates Ravi Varma Kumar and Yusuf Muchhala contended that the presentation of religion through clothing shows the variety and singling out hijab disregards fundamental rights.

"Ghoongats (veils) are permitted, bangles are permitted. Why only hijab?" asked the applicants' legal counselors as they looked for a request permitting Muslim young ladies to go to classes again wearing hijab.

Senior advocate Ravi Varma Kumar, appearing for petitioners said, "Why is the government picking on hijab alone and making this hostile discrimination? This is only because of her religion that the petitioner is being sent out of the classroom. A bindi-wearing girl is not sent out. A bangle-wearing girl is not. A Christian wearing a cross is not touched. Why only these girls? This is a violation of Article 15 of the Constitution."

"Ghoongats are permitted, bangles are permitted. Why only hijab? Why not the turban of a Sikh, cross of the Christians?" he added.

The dispute started at a government college in Karnataka's Udupi. The lawyers of Muslim girl students are calling it an essential Islamic practice (Hijab in Islam), citing Article 25. In the High Court, Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat has held that the notification of the state government is invalid and said that there is no provision in this regard in the Karnataka Education Act. 

Know the update related to the hearing of the case:

Chief Justice: We understand that it is not necessarily a necessary religious practice under Article 25.

Senior Advocate Yusuf Muchhala: One's trust has to be protected.

Yusuf Muchhala: The fact that this is being done because of the opposition of other students (other religions) is also stated in the mandate. So it is completely biased. This is completely unfair. When a right is claimed under Articles 25(1) and 19(1)(a), the respect of an honest faith on the part of the individual matters. When authority is claimed as a matter of conscience, there is no need to go deep into the question of whether it is an integral part of religion or not.

Yusuf Muchhala: The question about an integral part of religion arises when a right is claimed on behalf of a denomination under Article 26 and not when a person is claiming freedom of conscience under Article 25.

Yusuf Muchhala: The students are not claiming any religious rights, but only girls are protesting. Is this fair? Both sides should have been heard and a solution should have been found. This is grounds for arbitrariness.

Yusuf Muchhala: The fairness is that notice should be given first. To avoid any kind of trouble in the school, a PTA committee was formed, they were not consulted. Why was the PTA committee not consulted? What was the hurry? It was a custom to wear them ever since they took admission in schools. What was the hurry to change?

Chief Justice: Was any headgear part of the uniform?

Yusuf Muchhala: They're just putting on an apron on their head. When we say uniform, we cannot strictly limit ourselves to the dress code. It remains to be seen what practice was adopted in the school. It was changed without notice.

Yusuf Muchhala: Here, in this case, the girls had kept a scarf on their heads since they got admission to the school.

Chief Justice: Is it part of the uniform?

Yusuf Muchhala: If a girl is wearing glasses, can it be insisted that she is not part of the uniform? You can't take it so harshly.

Chief Justice: For what purpose do you want to cite this judgment?

Yusuf Muchhala: To show arbitrariness.

Chief Justice: Right.

The hearing was held in the Karnataka High Court after 2.30 pm. The matter is before a full bench of Chief Justice Rituraj Awasthi, Justice Krishna S Dixit, and Justice J M Khazi. As soon as the hearing started, advocate Subhash Jha said that this is the fourth consecutive day when the matter is being heard. Any lawyer is capable of arguing for hours but the matter should be decided as soon as possible.

Earlier, on February 10, a single bench of Justice Krishna Dixit had referred the matter to a larger bench. On Tuesday, February 8, the three-member Full Bench held the first hearing. At the same time, CM Basavaraj Bommai had issued an order to close all high schools and colleges in the state for three days.

Karnataka's Secondary Education Minister BV Nagesh said that this dispute is in the High Court and the government is waiting for the order. Till the decision comes, all schools and colleges should follow their dress code. Under the Karnataka Education Act, all educational institutions have been given the right to decide their uniform. The dress code will have to be announced well before the start of the session and should not change for five years.