The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday adjourned the hearing petitions challenging the ban on hijab in some educational institutions in the state, on the fourth day.
The court will resume its session tomorrow, Feb 17, at 2:30 pm to hear the rest of the writ petitions.
The matter is before a bench comprising Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice JM Khazi were hearing the petitions today at 2.30 pm.
Senior Advocate and Professor Ravi Varma Kumar, appearing for the petitioners challenged the hijab ban in educational institutions in Karnataka and made his submissions in the High Court saying that the government's hijab order was draconian. He further added that the govt order doesn't mention any other religious symbols and classrooms should reflect India's diversity.
Ravi Kumar referred to the Karnataka Education Act and stated that the rule notifies that when an educational institution intends to change uniform, it has to issue notice one year in advance to parents. “If there is a ban on hijab, it should inform one year in advance,” he added.
He argued that "There is no prohibition against Hijab so the question arises that under what authority or rules I (students) have been kept out of the class?"
Pointing out that there are hundreds of religious symbols in all sections of the society, Kumar asked: “Why are they picking only on the hijab? Is it being used for discrimination based on religion?”
Arguing on behalf of petitioners, advocate Ravi Kumar asked the judges why the Hijab was being singled out when there were "hundreds of religious symbols from dupattas, bangles, turbans, crosses and bindis" worn by people every day.
"It is very important to take note of the fact that the College Development Council is not an authority which is established or recognised under the rules. The GO [Government Order] has declared that no uniform is prescribed for the PU colleges," petitioner's lawyer said.
Referring to the guidelines issued by a government department for the academic year 2021-22 for all pre-university colleges, advocate Ravi Kumar pointed that "It’s not a rule but it’s a regulation in the form of guidelines. And it states that there is no uniform prescribed for [students of] pre-university colleges."
"The principal shall not insist on uniform and principal will face disciplinary action if uniform insisted," he added.
Senior Advocate Yusuf Muchhala, representing another set of petitioners, began his submission and said that although it was not in the rules, "fairness" called for a notice to be given before banning the hijab in classrooms.
"On the ground of fairness, they should have been heard. The fact that it has been done because of the opposition of some other students is also recorded in the government response and Order. It is partisan, totally unfair and falls under manifest arbitrariness," added Muchhala.
Muchhala argued that Muslim girls should not be made to make a choice between their conscience and education.
The hearing ended with Ravivarma Kumar telling the court that he had filed an application asking for clarification on the court's interim order.
On Friday, Feb 11, the court requested the state to re-open the educational institutions at the earliest and has restrained students from wearing any sort of religious clothes in classrooms, regardless of their faith, while the matter is pending hearing.
(with sources inputs)
