Hijab Case - Allowing Religious Symbols In Educational Institutions Against Secularism : Colleges & Teachers Tell Karnataka HC

A Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court today continued hearing the Respondents in the petitions filed by Muslim girl students, challenging the action of a government college in denying their entry for wearing a hijab (headscarf). Today is the 9th day of the hearing before the Full Bench.Senior Advocate S. Naganand, appearing for govt PU college, its principal and lecturers today told the Bench comprising Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice JM Khazi that the petitioners had no objection in following the dress code until December 2021. He stated that the college has stipulated uniform since 2004, and it was only now, allegedly at the behest of a radical group that the students are "drum beating" the issue of hijab."This is a simple issue, let children come to school and don't wear the external symbols of religion. Now a right-wing association of Hindus wants to wear saffron shawls. Tomorrow, Muslim boys will want to wear skull cap. Where is this going to end?" he said.The Bench also heard Senior Advocate Sajan Poovayya for the College Development Committee and Advocate Raghavendra Srivatsa.Further, the Court has asked the intervenors to submit their written submissions in the matter."We do not need assistance, but since so many intervenors have come, we will reqeust to give written submissions. We cannot hear this matter for six months," it said.Further, making a clarification on its interim order restraining students from wearing any sort of religious clothes in classrooms, the Court said,"Our order is clear, it only applies to institutions with uniform. If uniform is prescribed it has to be followed by degree or PU College."This was after an application was filed stating that colleges where no uniform is prescribed are also taking coercive action.Hearing will continue tomorrow, at 2.30 pm. Wearing Hijab not Essential Religious Practice: Naganand Yesterday, Naganand had argued that wearing of headscarf is not an Essential Religious Practice but is a cultural practice. In the same vein, he today presented before the Court the copy of petitioner's Aadhaar card, wherein her photo is without hijab. He then stated that during Shah's rule, there was no purdah system in Tehran, even though it was a Muslim state. "I remember in colleges students from Tehran would come in Bangalore. We used to see hordes living here. At that time, purdah etc. was not needed." Radical mobilization of students: Naganad He then alleged that the so-called student protests are being organized by the 'Campus Front of India', purportedly a radical organization, following denial of its request by the authorities for wearing of hijab. "After refusing, students behaved rashly. CFI has been coordinating the protests. It is some kind of voluntary organization which is spearheading drum beating of hijab. It is supposed to be a students' association, but it is not union recognized etc. It is an organization which comes and creates commotion." At this juncture, the Bench asked the Advocate General if the government has any intelligence inputs about this organization. The AG undertook to place the same before the Court in a sealed cover. Naganand then informed the Court that some teachers were also threatened by CFI and a complaint in this regard was lodged yesterday by one of the teachers. "When was the complaint lodged? State should have disclosed it to us," Justice Dixit said. The AG responded that he was unaware of these developments. False allegations against PU College: Naganad Naganad, appearing on behalf of govt PU college, its principal and lecturers, continued that false allegation have been levelled by the petitioners regarding classroom discrimination. "They (petitioners) say teachers were scolding etc. These are serious allegation; the petitioners have not substantiated it. They say the threat was to mark them absent. Yes, if they don't attend classes, they will be marked absent. What threat? 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. The two representations given by students, which I have annexed, do not contain these allegations. In September if something is done, will a student go home silently, and make a complaint after three months and file a petition six months later?" Uniform compulsory since 2004-05: Naganand Naganand contended that the Govt PU college has a prescribed uniform since 2004 and it has been consistently the same since then. However, that was not a problem until now. "Violation of Article 25 is debated. Govt has not prescribed, it has said institution take decision. In our case institution has taken decision (for uniforms) since 2004." Uniform introduced to maintain public order: Naganand ...

Hijab Case - Allowing Religious Symbols In Educational Institutions Against Secularism : Colleges & Teachers Tell Karnataka HC

Mustafa Plumber

Tags