Hijab Row: Maintain Peace, Karnataka HC to Students; Hearing to Resume Tomorrow | What Transpired in Court

Karnataka Hijab Row: Justice Krishna S Dixit is hearing the petitions filed by a number of Muslim students, while senior Advocate Devdutt Kamat is representing the petitioners, who have sought the court's directions to the government and the education department to allow them to attend classes in hijab.

Bengaluru: Amid the ongoing row over the wearing of headscarves in classrooms in Karnataka, the High Court has asked students to maintain peace and tranquility so that the public is not disturbed. “I have full faith in the wisdom and virtue of the public at large and it hopes the same would be practiced”, said Justice Krishna S Dixit while hearing the petition filed by a number of Muslim students challenging Hijab Ban in colleges. The court will resume hearing at 2:30 PM tomorrow. Representing the petitioners, senior Advocate Devdutt Kamat, who had sought the court’s directions to the government and the education department to allow students to attend classes in headscarves, said that hijab and cross in educational institutions are reflections of positive secularism.

Karnataka Hijab Row: What Transpired in Court | Highlights

1. Hearing ends for the day. To continue at 2.30 PM tomorrow.
2. Karnataka HC appealed to the students to maintain peace & tranquility so that the public is not disturbed. Justice Dixit said that it has full faith in the wisdom and virtue of the public at large and it hopes the same would be practiced.
3. Karnataka HC noted that making agitation, going on the street, shouting slogans, attacking students, students attacking others, these are not good things HC says if we see fire and blood on TV, judges will be disturbed. If the mind is disturbed, intellect will not work
4. “I will continue tomorrow. All can argue. But make sure that the arguments do not go on till the end of the academic year. Everyone on record will be permitted, subject to no duplication. Keep it short”, said Justice Dixit.
5. Court dictating order: Having heard counsel for the parties and pending the further hearing of matter, this court requests the student community and the public at large to maintain peace and tranquility. This court has full faith in the wisdom and virtue of public at large and hope the same would be put to practice.
6. When Justice Dixit asked how long students have been prevented from attending college? Kamat said he represents students from Kundapura college and they have been stopped from past 4-5 days.
7. Kamat further stressed that there can be a law prescribing uniforms. “Bar Council can prescribe a dress code for advocates. The point is if the restrictions are compatible with fundamental rights and are reasonable”, LIVE law quoted the advocate.
8. “What dress to wear is part of right to privacy”, said Kamat mentioning a verdict. To this, Karnataka Chief Justice asked can my brother judges not wear judges’ attire tomorrow? Responding to this Kamat said, “There can be a law. Bar Council of India (BCI) can tomorrow lay down a law that is in consonance with the Constitution. I am conceding that.
9. Kamat said that Hijab, Cross in educational institutions are reflections of positive secularism.
10. Kamat emphasised that some countries follow the concept of “negative secularism” which does not permit the display of religious identity in public.  He added that secularism in India is different, we practice positive secularism. “Our secularism is based on respect… State respects all religion”, he stated further.
11. Taking a cue from Justice Chandrachud’s judgment in a case that had reversed a ban on a movie which was imposed citing public order, Kamat said that ‘Freedom is not a supplicant to power’.
12. “Some foreign jurisdictions follow the concept of “negative secularism” which does not permit the display of religious identity in public. But, in India “positive secularism” is followed”, Live Law quoted Kamat as saying.
13. Kamat asserted that the state has to justify on the material on record that restriction which has been placed is justifiable on the issue of public order.
14. GSB brahmins wear a naman and go to school. “Can the school say it affects public order? Or a Sikh who is wearing a turban, can the state say it affects public order?”, asked Kamat.  Responding to this, Justice Dixit said, “In the case of Sikhs, Guru Grant Sahib prescribes five essential ‘K’s. And the Courts have held that they are essential religious practices. It has been held by courts in Canada and USA also.”
15. To give it the colour of public order, this is an attempt to put the cart before the horse, said Kamat.
16. Quoting Ratilal’s judgment, Kamata said that secular views have no bearing in determining the faith of a community.
17. Responding to Justice Dixit, Kamat said that the facts of the cases are similar. Defending the students, he said that the students were wearing head scarf since admission, without bothering anyone, till somebody thought it was violative of something.
18. When Kamat referred to Bijoe Emmanuel vs State of Kerala case, Justice Dixit said much of these laws seems to be flowing from Kerala. Kesavananda, Bijoe Emmanuel.
19. ‘Headscarf is part and parcel of Islamic faith’, said Kamat referring to the judgment of Madras High Court (M.Ajmal Khan vs The Election Commission Of India).
20. “It is, thus, seen from the reported material that there is almost unanimity amongst Muslim scholars that purdah is not essential but covering of head by scarf is obligatory”, Kamata said quoting Madras HC judgement.
21. Kamat reading out Kerala High Court judgment on hijab ban in a Christian institution. That was a different case since minority right to establish and administer educational institutions under Article 30 was given primacy: Kamat.

What Does The Petition Say?

1. Seeking permission to wear hijab, the petitioners— Suha Maulana and Aisha Aleefa, students of the government pre-university college in Udupi district,  have pointed out in their petition that there was no dispute on hijabs when they got admission to the college. “The principal introduced the restriction all of a sudden on February 3, saying they have a government order restricting hijabs inside classes”, said the petition.
2. In the petition, the students allege that the college has restricted their entry with ‘hijabs’ (headscarf) in the college premises at the instance of the MLA. When the parents of the girls met the principal and questioned the decision, the latter told them that the step has been taken as per the direction of the MLA, who is the president of the college development committee, the students said in the petition.
3. The petitioners have also sought interim relief from the Court, as the students have not been able to attend regular physical classes since February 4, ‘which is negatively impacting their education’.
4. Two students of a private college at Kundapur here have also approached it with the same plea.
5. The students have alleged that the ban violates the right to freedom of religion enshrined in Article 25 of the Constitution.