advertisement
The Supreme Court continued to hear a batch of petitions against the Karnataka High Court’s order to ban the wearing of hijab by Muslim girls in educational institutions for the ninth day on Wednesday, 21 September.
The petitions are being heard by Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia. On being asked by Justice Gupta if wearing the hijab is an essential religious practice, the state counsel for Karnataka, Advocate General (AG) Prabhuling Navadgi, said that a woman not donning the hijab does not become "less Muslim."
While the petitioners, being represented by senior advocate Dushyant Dave, had concluded their arguments on Tuesday, the Bench is now hearing the arguments from the State Counsels.
He referred to previous judgments of the top court which had declared the triple talaq and the cow slaughter as practices which are not essential in Islam.
The AG claimed that the State only intends to discipline students by regulating their uniform and that there is no prohibition on wearing the hijab outside. “There is no restriction on wearing it in school transport. There is no restriction even in school campus. It is only in classroom," he added.
The AG, on being asked by Justice Gupta what kind of practice would wearing the hijab be if it was presumed to be non-essential, said that not every "mundane activity" related to religion can be an essential religious practice.
On Justice Dhulia’s oral remark, in the court on Tuesday, that the Karnataka High Court should not have delved into the question of essential religious practices, AG Navadgi said that the petitioners had themselves approached the court saying that it is an essential tenet.
The AG added that Article 25 of the Constitution protects essential religious activities without which the religion cannot survive.
The AG said that the Karnataka Education Act is intended to administer educational institutions and its objective is to bring in discipline, and incidentally, if there is a violation of Article 19 (fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression), the Act cannot be invalidated.
The petitioners had argued that the state cannot enter into a barter system with its citizens asking them to surrender their right to privacy in exchange for their right to education.
The AG responded to this by asking if the right to wear a dress as part of the right to privacy can be exercised everywhere?
(With inputs from LiveLaw.)
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)
Published: 21 Sep 2022,06:04 PM IST