BREAKING| Supreme Court Concludes Hearing In Hijab Case, Reserves Judgment

After a marathon hearing over a period of 10 days, the Supreme Court today reserved its judgment on a batch of petitions challenging the Karnataka High Court's judgment which upheld the ban on wearing hijab by Muslim students in educational institutions.A bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia heard Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Karnataka Advocate General Prabhuling Navadgi and Addl Solicitor General KM Nataraj for the State. Senior Advocates R Venkataramani, Dama Seshadri Naidu and V Mohana appeared for college teachers. The Petitioners' side had concluded its arguments on Tuesday.Making rejoinder submissions in the matter today, Senior Advocates Dushyant Dave and Huzefa Ahmadi today submitted that the arguments of Solicitor General regarding involvement of Popular Front of India are wholly irrelevant and are made to cause prejudice. They argued that no material has been shown on record regarding this. The Petitioners argued that unlike triple talaq and cow sacrifice, Hijab is mentioned in Quran and it is the farz of Muslim women to retain the same. Further, it was contended that in absence of State showing that hijab affects the fundamental rights of others, any restriction on wearing the same affects the freedom of conscience and "behavioural privacy" of Muslim women. It also hampers their education prospects, it was argued. COURTROOM EXCHANGE Allegations about PFI conspiracy false: Dave The Solicitor General had alleged that till the year 2021, no girl student was wearing any hijab. However, an agitation was started by the Popular Front of India to create 'social unrest' and that the students were made part of this conspiracy. Dave said he "regrets" such allegations have been imputed sans any pleadings in that regard. He took the bench through the impugned circular of the Karnataka government, to point out that there is no mention of any PFI activity and rather, the circular cites observance of religious practices as a "hindrance" to unity and equality. Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi also submitted that argument of PFI was not raised before High Court. "They can't rely on documents not on record. It is an argument introduced to create a prejudice." Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat said that though State made a "grandiose statement" that till 2021 nobody wore hijab, there is no pleading to that context. Justice Gupta agreed that in one of the writ petitions, there is a mention that the Petitioner was wearing hijab. "And there is no counter-affidavit controverting this fact," Kamat added. Impugned GO contrary to Education Dept's guidelines: Dave Dave mentioned that the Department of Education had issued guidelines by for academic year 2021-2022, as per which uniform is not compulsory. Thus, the impugned GO dated February 5 could not supersede the said guidelines. "There is no question of subsequent circular superseding… The present circular does not advert to these guidelines," he said. He continued, "It (guidelines) was part of the writ document before the High Court. Solicitor General said it was an unsubstantiated document. But it is substantiated by their own submission before the High Court. How can you disown your own document? I respectfully say it is not right for law officers to say this document is unsubstantiated when it is a govt document." However, when the Bench inquired from ASG Nataraj about these guidelines, he responded that guidelines do not confer any right. "They do not affect statutory instructions." "Once it is issued for information for all, you can't say it is untenable," Justice Gupta told the ASG. In this context, Advocate Shoeb Alam also contended that definition of law under Article 19(2) is narrow and that a mere 'circular' cannot take away the citizens' fundamental rights (Pharmacy Council of India v. Rajeev College of Pharmacy). Article 19(2) means statutory law, he asserted. Is hijab essential? Justice Dhulia remarked that issue is not uniform or whether students were wearing it. "Issue is whether you are permitting hijab or not." Dave submitted that for some people it is an essential practice, some people are more religious, some are more tolerant… "Some people may wear it (hijab). Some people are more religious. It is an individual choice. That is why essential religious practice test was rejected long back. It was brought by backdoor," he said. Justice Dhulia pointed that it was petitioner's own case that Hijab is essential. "Look at their prayer, they were seeking a declaration that it is an essential practice." Dave responded, "High Court is to look at the law, even if there is a prayer, the High Court has to go by the Constitution. Even if there is a concession, there can't be a concession against the Constitution. There can't be an estoppel against a Constitutional provision even if a prayer is made. Court acts as a sentinel on...

BREAKING| Supreme Court Concludes Hearing In Hijab Case, Reserves Judgment

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags