Contending that wearing hijab was not part of “essential religious practice” protected under the right to freedom of religion, Advocate-General Prabhuling K. Navadgi on Friday told the High Court of Karnataka that claims on wearing hijab would also have to “pass the test of constitutional morality and individual dignity as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the Sabarimala case”.
Commencing his arguments on petitions filed by Muslim girl students questioning restriction on wearing hijabs in classrooms, Mr. Navadgi justified before a three-judge Bench, headed by Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, the February 5, 2022, Government Order, which had laid down guidelines on uniforms in schools and pre-university colleges.
Members of Legislative Assembly were being made chairpersons of the college development committees (CDCs) of the government per-university colleges in the respective Assembly constituencies as per the Government Order issued in 2014, the A-G pointed out, while responding to the allegation made in the petition that Udupi MLA Raghupaghi Bhat was a “self-claimed chairperson” of the Government PU College for Girls, Udupi.
He also pointed out to the Bench, also consisting of Justice Krishna S. Dixit and Justice Jaibunnisa M. Khazi, that the GO of February 25 had only given autonomy to CDCs to prescribe uniforms while claiming that it was “a conscious decision” taken by the Government as the issue of wearing hijab got escalated despite it [Government] referring issue of uniform to a high-level committee. The A-G said the Government had not prescribed any uniform to the pre-university colleges.
To a query by the Bench on what was the need for the Government to refer to various judgments of other High Courts and apex court related to Article 25 (right of freedom to religion) when it merely wanted leave the decision to CDCs, the A-G said that possibly it could have been avoided but “ultimately we have left it to the CDCs”.
Justifying uniforms and reiterating that the State believed in treating everyone equally, the A-G also pointed out that the object of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 was, among others “…to fostering the harmonious development of the mental and physical faculties of students and cultivating a scientific and secular outlook through education.”
Livestreaming to continue
“Let the people also hear what is the stand of the respondents [State Government and others],” the High Court of Karnataka said on Friday while refusing to accept the plea for suspending livestreaming of the proceedings on petitions over hijab restrictions in the court’s official YouTube channel.
Earlier senior advocate Ravivarma Kumar, appearing for the four Muslim girls students from Udupi, had requested the court to suspend the livestreaming of the proceedings.
“Livestreaming is causing a lot of problems all over the State and a lot of unrest because of the proceedings being played out of context. Livestreaming has become counter productive and children are put to untold misery and hardship all over the State,” Mr. Kumar claimed.
However, the Advocate-General said that advocates of the petitioners had already argued very vehemently and... at this stage, Chief Justice said that “let the people also hear what is the stand of the respondents”.
