Hijab Ban Case
The Karnataka government told the Supreme Court on Tuesday that there are no restrictions on the wearing of the hijab in India with reasonable restrictions under the organization’s discipline and denied allegations that refusing to wear the hijab was a violation of Article 15 of the Constitution, which prohibits all forms of discrimination.
Against the petitioner, Muslim schoolgirls in Udupi district, who objected to the ban on entering the classroom because they wore headscarves, Karnataka Justice Minister Prabhuling Navadgi said that the right to wear the hijab belongs to the category 19 (1) (A) and not section 25 as the plaintiffs have argued.
“The right to wear a headscarf is under Article 19(1)(A) and not Article 25. If a person wishes to wear a headscarf, there is no limit to subject to agency discipline’. Rights asserted under section 19(1)(A) are bound by section 19(2) where the government imposes a reasonable restraint on institutional restraint,” Prabhuling Navadgi told the entire Karnataka High Court judge.
The full bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Judge J.M. Khazi, and Judge Krishna M. Dixit heard a series of petitions to allow headscarves to be worn in the classroom.
Prabhuling Navadgi added that the institutional limitation in the present case is only within educational institutions and nowhere else.
Continuing his argument, he stated that 19(1)(A) ‘s declaration of independence could not go along with Article 25.
“The consequences of asking the Hijab to declare it an essential religious practice are huge because there is an element of coercion or you will be kicked out of the community,” Navadgi told the Court.
Article 19(1)(A) deals with freedom of speech in the Indian constitution.
Section 19 (2) provides that nothing in subparagraph (a) of paragraph (1) shall affect the operation of any applicable law or prevent a State from making any law, to the extent that this Act imposes reasonable limitations on: The exercise of the right provided for by the preceding sub-clause in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the nation, friendly relations with foreign nations, public order, courtesy or morality or involving contempt of Court, defamation or incitement to criminal conduct.
Article 25 deals with freedom of conscience and freedom of profession, practice, and propagation of religion and states that subject to public order, morality and health and other provisions of this Part, all Everyone has equal rights to freedom of conscience and freedom to profess, practice and propagate the Dharma.
Furthermore, the AG denied that the refusal to wear the hijab violated Article 15 of the Constitution, which prohibits any form of discrimination. “There is no discrimination, as stated under Article 15. These are bland allegations,” argued Navadgi. Article 15 prohibits discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.
Navdgi concludes his argument by quoting a song from the 1967 Hindi film Hamraaz – ‘Na munh chhupa ke jiyo, na sar jhuka ke jiyo. Ghamo ka daur bhi aye to muskara ke jiyo. ‘(Doesn’t hide his face, bows his head. Even in tough times, live with a smile.)
After the proceedings began, a lawyer representing the girls petitioned for a relaxation bench for the girls to relax. Muslim girls want to appear in schools and colleges with hijabs.
The Chief Justice said: ‘We want to close this case this week. Let’s do our best to finish this case by the end of this week.
The Karnataka High Court concluded its 11-day hearing on the head covering ban on Friday, February 25, but reserved its order.
The Court asked the petitioners and intercessors to submit written observations to the seat, if necessary.
The bench consisting of Chief Justice Krishna S. Dixit and Chief Justice Jaibunnisa M. Khazi heard a series of petitions by Muslim students daily for the past two weeks, asking permission to enter the class they have been banned from because they wear headscarves.
Girls were denied admission to a pre-university girls’ school in Udupi. As Muslim schoolgirls protested the move, right-wing Hindu groups staged protests against the headscarf in classrooms.
It is reported that during the hearing on the last day, the bench heard the rebuttal arguments of the plaintiffs by the main lawyers Yusuf Muchhala and Ravivarma Kumar and attorney Mohammad Tahir.
The Court also dismissed public interest lawsuits that sought to prevent journalists from suing students and teachers who covered blankets near educational institutions.
The hijab issue had captured the country’s attention. The Karnataka government had closed all educational institutions and reopened them gradually.
Meanwhile, under a temporary order, the Karnataka High Court forbids students from wearing religious clothing until the Court issues a final order.
There have been several reports of teachers, students, and other staff being forced to remove their headscarves before entering schools and universities.
During the hearings, student complaints claimed that the headscarf was the target of the hate discrimination movement, even though many religious symbols exist.
“If there are 100 symbols, why does the government only attack the headscarf? The bracelet is worn. Why only follow poor Muslim girls? Senior Attorney Ravivarma Kumar on behalf of the petitioners. He also referred to Article 15 of the constitution, which said, “It’s allowed to use Goonghat, it’s allowed to wear bracelets, why not ban Christian crucifixes. Why not the Sikh turban be banned?
The Government of Karnataka told the Supreme Court that there are no restrictions on wearing the hijab in India with reasonable restrictions depending on the discipline of the organization and denied the allegation that the refusal Wearing a headscarf violates Article 15 of the Constitution, which prohibits discrimination of any kind.
Edited by Prakriti Arora