In an effort to defuse tensions, the state government of Karnataka temporarily closed schools last week.
The Karnataka High Court today resumed hearing on petitions filed by Muslim girls studying in government pre-university colleges in Udupi against the government ban on hijab in classes. The court had adjourned the hearing yesterday after state Advocate General Prabhuling Navadgi sought time to respond to the petitions.
The arguments in the case come amid rising tensions in Karnataka where, late last year, students were prevented from wearing Muslim headscarves, protests and counter demonstrations involving saffron scarves have since spread to other states.
In an effort to defuse tensions, Karnataka’s state government temporarily closed schools last week, but has been gradually reopening over the past two days. The Karnataka High Court has imposed a temporary ban on the wearing of all religious symbols in schools while it considers the headscarf ban.
Here are the main features on the hijab row:
get ndtv updatesturn on notifications Receive alerts as this story develops,
- As I understand it, controversy falls into three broad categories. Firstly, order dated 05.02.2022. My first submission is that the order is in accordance with the Education Act.
- The second, more convincing argument, is that the hijab is an essential part. We have taken the stand that wearing hijab does not come under the essential religious practice of Islam.
- Wearing the hijab does not fall under the essential religious practice of Islam.
- Thirdly, this right to wear the hijab can be traced to Article 19(1)(a). Submitted that it doesn’t.
- The practice of hijab must pass the test of constitutional morality and personal dignity, as propounded by the Supreme Court in the Sabarimala and Shayra Bano (Triple Talaq) cases. This is a positive proposition that we are debating freely.
Advocate Mohan says that the petition was filed due to urgency.
The bench has given time till Monday to move the resolution.
CJ: Show the Society’s resolution to allow you to file first.
ADV Mohan: Will produce on Monday.
CJ: No, we won’t allow that. You should have been careful. You are wasting court time. You say this question has come up for the first time! Look at the way you filed.
CJ: Show the Society’s resolution to allow you to file first.
Advocate Mohan: I will produce on Monday.
CJ: No, we won’t allow that. You should have been careful. You are wasting court time. You say this question has come up for the first time! Look at the way you filed.
Advocate Mohan: The Chairman himself is filing this petition.
CJ: Is the president authorized? Show us the bylaws.
Advocate Mohan : I will submit the authority. We have filed many WPs in the past as well. This issue never came up.
CJ: It’s shocking, just because you haven’t been asked before.
Advocate Mohan: The petitioner is an association of minority institutions protected by Articles 29 and 30.
CJ: Is the petitioner a registered body?
Mohan: Yes.
CJ: Under the Societies Registration Act?
Advocate Mohan: Yes.
CJ: Where is the Society’s resolution authorizing the filing?
Advisor GR Mohan is now appearing on behalf of Karnataka State Minorities Educational Institutions Management Federation.
CJ: There are other objections. The other objection is the shortfall of Rs 20 in the stamp. The third objection is not with the affidavit in the proforma of the PIL. We will give you time to clear the office’s objections.
The Bench allowed the writ petition to be withdrawn with the liberty to file a fresh petition.
Advocate Kirti Singh now presents arguments in a PIL filed by a women’s union and a Muslim woman.
Advocate Singh: We did not file the declaration as per the rules of the High Court, now we have filed it and accordingly we can be heard.
Justice Dixit: Not a single anti-social element is made a party. No explanation has been given for not forming a party. How can this petition be considered?
Chief Justice: You better file a proper petition. Make proper arrangements. The college has not been made a party. What a petition this is!
Ahmed sought permission to amend the petition to add the college.
Justice Dixit: Where is the right to say that the college is protesting. He says that anti-social elements are stopping. None of them has been made a party. The college has not been made a party.
CJ: If some anti-social elements are stopping you, then register an FIR against them.
CJ: You yourself are saying that there was no restraint or force to remove the hijab, now some opposing elements are forcing them to remove the hijab.
Lawyer: The college administration is also not giving permission.
CJ: What you mentioned in the petition is not what you are saying
Ahmed has referred to the Sabarimala verdict.
“I would like to bring a decision to the notice of the Court. Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala”.
A lawyer explains the prevention of wearing the hijab
Kumar to Chief Justice: Let people understand what is the stand of the defendants as well.
The bench is now starting hearing on a fresh petition. Advocate Sirajuddin Ahmed is present on behalf of one of the petitioners.
Adv.Ravi Varma Kumar request you to stop live-streaming.
“Live streaming is causing a lot of unrest as comments are deemed out of context. Live streaming has become counterproductive and children are thrown into unpleasant turmoil”
Senior advocate Ravivarma Kumar has referred to the application filed for permission to wear dupatta of a similar colour. He says that the state has not registered any objection.
AG says 2 days time was given and will be filed today.
Chief Justice: If the special bench continues, we will hear on Monday.
CJ to Dar: If the proceedings end today, we can’t help it. But as it looks, the proceedings are likely to continue on Monday as well.
Kothwal now makes a mention claiming that his petition (which was dismissed yesterday) was in compliance with the rules. He wants a review.
CJ: What we find is that there are 3 more new petitions today. We request that the lawyers of all these new petitions may take only 10 minutes so that we can hear the respondents.
The Bench of the Karnataka High Court has come to hear the Hijab case. Senior advocate AM Dar (whose plea for culpability was dismissed yesterday) submits that a fresh petition has been filed keeping in view the objections. He has demanded a hearing on this on Monday.
In an effort to defuse tensions, Karnataka’s state government temporarily closed schools last week, but has been gradually reopening over the past two days. The Karnataka High Court has imposed a temporary ban on the wearing of all religious symbols in schools while it considers the headscarf ban.
The arguments in the case come amid rising tensions in Karnataka where, late last year, students were prevented from wearing Muslim headscarves, protests and counter demonstrations involving saffron scarves have since spread to other states.
The Karnataka High Court today resumed hearing on petitions filed by Muslim girls studying in government pre-university colleges in Udupi against the government ban on hijab in classes. The court had adjourned the hearing yesterday after state Advocate General Prabhuling Navadgi sought time to respond to the petitions.
,