BREAKING| Hijab Ban: Karnataka High Court Full Bench Reserves Judgment After 11 Days Hearing

A Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court today reserved its judgment in the petitions filed by Muslim girl students, challenging the action of a government PU college in denying their entry for wearing a hijab (headscarf). Hearing before the Full Bench comprising Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice JM Khazi was conducted for 11 days. It may be noted that the Court's interim order, restraining the students from wearing any sort of religious clothes in classrooms, regardless of their faith, is subsisting as of date.The parties and intervenors have been granted liberty to file their written submissions.An important question before the Court in this case is whether wearing of hijab is part of essential religious practise of Islam and whether State interference in such matters is warranted. The court is also called to consider whether wearing of hijab partakes the character of right to expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and whether restriction can be levied only under Article 19(2).The petitioners have also challenged a GO dated February 5, conferring power on College Development Committees to prescribe uniforms.It may be recalled that the Petitioners had contended that there is no provision under the Education Act which contemplates a CDC. The State had then relied on the 'Residuary powers' under the Act, to justify its actions.Today, the Bench speaking though Justice Dixit said that it is not satisfied with the AG's statement that the circular delegating power to CDC can be traced from the removal of difficulties clause.As far as State government is concerned, it has claimed that it's aim is not to interfere with the religious beliefs of any community but, is only concerned to maintain a sense of secularism, uniformity, discipline and public order in educational institutions.The State also said that wearing hijab does not stand the test of constitutional morality and individual dignity, laid down by the Supreme Court in Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (Sabarimala judgment).Further details below.What transpired in Court today?During the course of hearing today, the Bench heard rebuttal arguments for petitioners by Senior Advocates Yusuf Muchhala and Ravivarma Kumar and Advocate Mohammad Tahir. It also heard Dr. Vinod Kulkarni, party in person, supporting hijab.Further, it dismissed a PIL seeking to restrain media houses from chasing hijab clad students and teachers while proceeding to their schools & colleges and from video-graphing and photographing of children and teachers near to their schools while they were removing their hijabs and burqas.Wearing hijab bonafide practice of conscience: Mucchala It may be recalled that the Respondents had raised the issue of 'constitutional morality' and had contended that declaring hijab as an essential religious practice will amount to lowering the dignity of women who do not wear a headscarf. Responding to this, Mucchala pointed out that the petitioners have not sought for a general declaratory relief and have sought for quashing of the impugned GO and permission for them to attend classes with hijab. "We have been wearing head scarf, it is a piece of cloth covering the head not the face, it should be permitted to use it. It is not right for college to prevent us from doing that. If it is a bonafide practice of conscience, it should be allowed under Article 25. It is not necessary to consider if it is essential religious practice or not." Mucchala quoted scholar Muhammad Pickthall to argue that true Islamic tradition requires veiling of the head. "The thing is even hadiths also shows that face need not be covered but hijab should be worn. There are enough religions traditions, govt has admitted this in their reply," he said. He referred to the observations in Ayodhya case that the Court should be cautious not to enter into theological discussions and should only see if the faith and the belief of the worshipper is genuinely held. "It is inappropriate for this Court to enter upon an area of theology and to assume the role of an interpreter of the Hadees. The true test is whether those who believe and worship have faith in the religious efficacy," it was held in the Ayodhya case. He submitted, "Here, the faith and belief is that she should dress in conjunction with what is stated in Quran and wear hijab. Lordships should respect that…Whatever is stated in Quran, Hadith & Ima must be obeyed." Composition of CDCs questionable: Kumar Senior Advocate Professor Ravivarma Kumar opposed the constitution of CDCs insofar as it confers executive powers on MLAs are concerned. He submitted, "Kindly see the composition of CDC. President will be local MLA; Nominee no. 1 is Vice President who is local representative of MLA. Four nominees of members. Absolute power is given to the MLA. The college is given on a platter to the MLA, who is a political man." ...

BREAKING| Hijab Ban: Karnataka High Court Full Bench Reserves Judgment After 11 Days Hearing

Mustafa Plumber

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Mustafa Plumber

BREAKING| Hijab Ban: Karnataka High Court Full Bench Reserves Judgment After 11 Days Hearing

Mustafa Plumber

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Mustafa Plumber

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers