Breaking| Hijab Ban: Karnataka High Court Full Bench To Pronounce Judgment On Students' Plea Tomorrow
A Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court will pronounce 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), tomorrow at 10.30 am.The order was reserved last month.Hearing before the Full Bench comprising Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice JM Khazi...
A Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court will pronounce 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), tomorrow at 10.30 am.
The order was reserved last month.
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 controversy erupted after few Muslim girl students of Govt PU college were denied entry for wearing headscarf. They contended that wearing hijab is part of their religious and cultural practice.
The Full Bench, after hearing both sides passed an interim order restraining the students from wearing any sort of religious clothes in classrooms, regardless of their faith, till disposal of the matter.
The Court has clarified that the interim order will apply to degree colleges as well, where uniform has been prescribed and that the order confines only to students.
It is the petitioners' case that wearing Hijab is an essential religious practice under Islam, and suspension of the same, even for a few hours during school, undermines the community's faith and violates their fundamental rights under Article 19 and 25 of the Constitution. They have heavily relied on a judgment of the Constitutional Court of South Africa, in KwaZulu-Natal and Others v Pillay, which upheld the right of a Hindu girl from South India to wear a nose ring to school.
They have also challenged a Government Order dated February 5, which allegedly targets the Muslim community.
Read detailed arguments by petitioners' side here:
The Advocate General appearing for the State has argued: (i) wearing of hijab does not fall within the essential religious practise of Islam; (ii) right to wear hijab cannot be traced to freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution; (iii) Government Order dated February 5 empowering College Development Committees (CDCs) to prescribe uniform is in consonance with the Education Act.
It is further State's contention 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).
Read State's arguments here:
The Respondent college and its teachers have argued that students must follow the prescribed uniform to maintain discipline and public order. It is their case that wearing religious symbols in a public place like school would be conducive to the Constitutional ethos of Secularism.
In his rebuttal arguments, Kamat argued that people who want to wear head scarf are being denied right to education on the pretext of the impugned GO. So far as constitutional morality is concerned, he submitted that Sabarimala and Navtej Johar judgments that were cited by the Advocate General are "pro-choice" judgments. "Constitutional morality is pro-choice. It is a restriction on state power," he said.