If Turban Wearing People Can Be In Army, Why Not Hijab Wearing Girls In Classes : Ravivarma Kumar To Karnataka High Court

A Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court today continued hearing arguments on the petitions filed by Muslim girl students, who challenged the action of a government college in denying their entry for wearing a hijab (headscarf).Prof Ravivarma Kumar, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners today argued that the state is discriminating against Muslim girls, solely on the basis of their religion. He highlighted that the Government Order dated February 5 targets wearing of hijab whereas other religious symbols are not taken into account. This leads to hostile discrimination violating Article 15 of the Constitution.The Bench comprising Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice JM Khazi also heard Senior Advocate Yusuf Muchhala for the petitioners.During the course of hearing, it also expressed disinclination to hear the intervenors in the matter. "Petitioners are being represented by senior advocates. Where is the question of considering the interventions? These applications will waste the time of the court," the Chief Justice said. He clarified that the intervenors may be heard later, if the bench feels the requirement of further assistance.Wearing Hijab not prohibited under Education Act or Rules: KumarThe first limb of submissions made by Senior Advocate Prof.Ravivarma Kumar was that there is no mandatory uniform prescribed for Pre-University Colleges by the Karnataka Education Act and the Rules made thereunder.He pointed out that no uniform is prescribed for govt colleges under the guidelines issued by PU Education Department, for the academic year 2021-22. "Neither the provisions under the act nor rules prescribe any uniform. Neither under act nor rules there is a prohibition on wearing HIjab."He referred to the Guidelines prescribed by the PU Education Department for the academic year 2021-22 which said that uniform is not mandatory for students studying in PU colleges. He also pointed out that the said guidelines expressly forbade College authorities from prescribing uniforms and warned that Principals will face disciplinary action if they imposed uniforms.The bench asked if this guideline of the Department has any force of law. Kumar replied that he is not seeking to enforce the said guideline and his only endeavour was to show it to the bench that there was no uniform prescribed in PU Colleges for the current academic year. At this juncture, Justice Dixit asked if merely because something is not prohibited in the Rules explicitly, does it mean that it is permitted."If that view is taken, somebody may say there is no license required to carry arms in the classroom as there is no prohibition. I am logically analysing what your proposition can take us to...There is no prohibition to carry kirpan if it is not prescribed. However, the power to prescribe under Rule 9 is there. That needs to be independently argued."Kumar responded,"I am not expanding the proposition I have made. I am only saying there is no prohibition against Hijab. The question that comes then is under what authority or rules I have been kept out of the class."Justice Dixit: That may not be a correct question. If that view is taken, somebody may say there is no license required to carry arms in the classroom as there is no prohibition. I am logically analysing what your proposition can take us to. #HijabRow— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) February 16, 2022 College Development Committee not empowered to stipulate Uniforms: Kumar Yesterday, Kumar had emphasized that the Education Act is a complete code in itself, and the so-called College Development Committee does not find mention under the statute. "It is an extra-legal authority which is now endowed with the power to prescribe the uniform, contrary to the scheme of the act and letter of the rules," he had said.Today, he submitted that the Legislature has expressly authorized the authorities coming under the Education Act. Section 143 thereof deals with delegation to authorities under the Act. He contended that since CDC is not an authority under the Act, much less a subordinate authority, and the delegation cannot be made to it.Kumar mentioned that CDCs have been constituted by a circular issued in 2014. "This is a circular, not an order, issued by the under secretary, not even an order in the name of the Govt...The circular says CDC is to be constituted for the purpose to utilise the grants, as well as maintaining education standards. This CDC is not for students welfare. It is only for academic standards."He stressed that prescribing uniforms was not a function entrusted with CDC as they have to deal with academic standards.At this juncture, the Bench enquired whether uniform cannot be prescribed to maintain academic standards. To this, Kumar responded,"With great respect, academic standards have no relation with uniform. Academic standards deal with student-teacher ratio, syllabus etc. CDC cannot have police powers over the students."Kumar: The...

If Turban Wearing People Can Be In Army, Why Not Hijab Wearing Girls In Classes : Ravivarma Kumar To Karnataka High Court

Mustafa Plumber

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

If Turban Wearing People Can Be In Army, Why Not Hijab Wearing Girls In Classes : Ravivarma Kumar To Karnataka High Court

Mustafa Plumber

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers