NEW DELHI, Feb 25: The Karnataka High Court on Friday reserved its judgement on the “hijab row” after continuous hearing for two weeks on a batch of petitions filed by Muslim girls from government pre-university colleges in Udupi district over curbs imposed on wearing hijab in classrooms.
The full bench headed by Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and comprising Justices Krishna Dixit and J M Khazi was constituted specifically to hear the hijab linked petitions.
On Friday, before the hijab linked petitions were reserved for judgment, social activist and advocate S Balan moved a public interest plea stating that Muslim girls were harassed by the media and education authorities by being forced to remove hijabs in public outside school and college campuses.
The advocate sought a court directive to restrict the media from intruding in the privacy of students by chasing them and filming them when school and college authorities were forcing them to remove their hijabs and burqas at the entrance of schools and colleges. “The students have been humiliated,” the advocate argued while calling the action of the electronic media “child abuse.” The full bench of the high court did not issue any orders but disposed of the PIL saying “whoever is aggrieved can make complaints to appropriate authorities for the complaints to be considered.”
The two weeks of hearings saw advocates for the Muslim girls claiming the right to wear the hijab in classrooms as being part of the freedom of religion and expression while assailing a February 5 order of the Karnataka education department suggesting that hijabs can be prohibited in institutions.
The order of February 5 was assailed as being inadmissible in administrative practice. It was also argued on behalf of the petitioners that college committees did not have the power to prescribe uniforms in pre university colleges since the CDCs are not statutory bodies.
The Karnataka advocate general Prabhuling Navadgi while defending the February 5 government order said it was innocuous and did not direct the prohibition of religious attire but left it open to institutions. The AG however admitted certain portions of the order may have been unnecessary. He had also argued at length to state that wearing of the hijab did not constitute an essential religious practice and that wearing of the hijab would as a result not fall in the category of freedom of religion but in the category of freedom of expression which can be curbed for discipline. He maintained that recognising hijab as essential religious practice and allowing its usage would result in the loss of choice among Muslim women in wearing the attire.
The bench passed a controversial order on February 10 which has been misconstrued and used as a general ban on hijab in schools and colleges despite clarifications by the HC that it applies only to state institutions with dress codes and only on the students.
(Manas Dasgupta)
