Allowing Religious Symbols In Class May Prepare Students To Face Country's Diversity, Justice Dhulia Says In Hijab Case Hearing [Day 9]

On the ninth day of hearing in the Hijab case, Supreme Court judge Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia asked how the State will prepare its students to face the religious and cultural diversity in the world, if it restricts religious apparel in schools in the name of equality and discipline.Justice Dhulia also remarked that display of religious symbols may be an opportunity for the students to look at the country's diversity and be "culturally sensitive".The remarks were made when Senior Advocate R Venkataramani, appearing for a teacher of Udupi college, submitted that schools must be free from all religious elements to ensure transmission of knowledge between the teacher and the student, without any separation or walls.In a school, how will you inculcate the values? Venkataramani asked.This prompted Justice Dhulia to state,"Teacher may also say, this is an opportunity, look at diverse country, be culturally sensitive, that can also be an exercise."He continued,"How will you prepare the students, when the go out of the schools, when the face the world, they will face the great diversity of the country, in culture, in dress, cuisine, so this can be an opportunity to prepare them. That can be also a perspective."Courtroom ExchangeThe Bench also comprising Justice Hemant Gupta is hearing a batch of petitions challenging the Karnataka High Court's judgment which upheld the ban on wearing hijab by Muslim students in educational institutions. The Petitioners' side had concluded its arguments yesterday and the Respondents concluded today.Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Karnataka Advocate General Prabhuling Navadgi and Addl Solicitor General KM Nataraj argued for the State.Senior Advocates R Venkataramani, Dama Seshadri Naidu and V Mohana appeared for college teachers.ASG Nataraj argued that Article 14 prevails over Article 25 and thus, religious symbols cannot be permitted in institutions imparting secular education. He pointed out that Article 25 right is made subject to the other rights under Part III of the Constitution. He submitted that there is no need to show violation of public order, morality or health to restrict Article 25 if the restrictions imposed are necessary to ensure protection of Article 14. "State action was to promote oneness; students should feel equal… Question is not hijab. We say follow uniform." He also opposed the prayer of referring the case to Constitution Bench. "This is a simple case of discipline. No person has been discriminated on the ground of religion. All have been treated equally." Mohana submitted that the whole issue has been seen from the angle of religion and not from viewpoint of education. "School is a public place where they come to form a symbiotic relationship, forgetting where they are coming from…It is not about religion, it is about bringing discipline to students. As a teacher it's my moral and legal duty to ensure that disciplined atmosphere is maintained." Naidu appearing for a professor argued that in schools, there should a zero-tolerance approach about uniform. "Let everybody bow down to Constitution so that they can have their religion in their hearts." Religious classification impermissible in secular educational institutions: ASG At the outset, ASG Nataraj submitted State has not banned hijab and it was never the intention. "State has only prescribed uniform which is religion neutral. We have neither prohibited nor promoted any religious activity. We are very clear and conscious of the fact that classification on the basis of religion is impermissible in institutions." He submitted that though right to religion is protected under Article 25, however, in the present case, Article 14 also assumes relevance to ensure equality among students. "In schools, uniforms are prescribed to treat all students equally. So, Article 14 steps. All communities are treated equally. That is the most appropriate. What is done by State is, all of you are equal, all of you must come in uniform irrespective of your religion. So, Article 14 is protected here. What has been done by a positive State action is to promote Article 14." Justice Dhulia pointed that Article 14 also contemplates "equal protection of law". The ASG responded that all students are given equal protection of law. "Equal protection of law is not treating differently. Somebody is not treated separately. Students as a whole has been made a class. Religion is a dividing factor. Students have been put together as a single class. No separate law for separate religions. Otherwise, what happens is that there will be discrimination on the basis of religion in a secular institution. Today one person says it is my right to wear hijab. Another person will say he wants to wear shawl. Another person will want something else. How can you have religious symbols in a secular education institution? Secular education is not meant for that." Justice Gupta...

Allowing Religious Symbols In Class May Prepare Students To Face Country's Diversity, Justice Dhulia Says In Hijab Case Hearing [Day 9]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Allowing Religious Symbols In Class May Prepare Students To Face Country's Diversity, Justice Dhulia Says In Hijab Case Hearing [Day 9]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers