[Hijab case] Girl students started wearing hijab to college after social media agitation, conspiracy: SG Tushar Mehta to Supreme Court

The female Muslim students challenging the hijab ban in Karnataka colleges never wore hijab to educational institutions until 2021 but suddenly started the practice on advice by someone else, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta told the Supreme Court on Tuesday [Fathima Bushra vs State of Karnataka]..SG Mehta told a bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia that the uniform prescribed by colleges in Karnataka was being followed by all students scrupulously till 2021, when a movement designed to create an agitation was started on social media by the Popular Front of India."Till 2021, no girl student was wearing Hijab. Nor this question ever arose....There were continuous social media messages that start wearing Hijab. This is on record. I have filed in cover details of that. This was not a spontaneous act. It was a part of larger conspiracy. Children were acting as advised," Mehta said. .He, therefore, defended the Karnataka government's order which effectively empower college development committees of government colleges in Karnataka to ban the wearing of hijab by Muslim girl students in college campus"If the government would not have acted the way it did, it would have been in dereliction of its Constitutional duty," he further stated while arguing that there would have been a threat to public order if the State had not interfered. .He added that the argument accusing the government of throttling the voice of minorities was far-fetched and that even saffron shawls are not allowed to be worn inside colleges."No, the government had to intervene in the circumstances because of the public order being disturbed. Students were banging the gates, saying let us come with Hijab then others were coming with saffron gamchas.".The Court was hearing a batch of appeals challenging the decision of the Karnataka High Court upholding the February 5 government order.After the appellants challenging the High Court's judgment concluded their arguments, counsel appearing for the State and Central governments began submission in the case today..Mehta submitted that the government order was, in fact, "religion-neutral" and did not prevent any particular community from wearing particular apparel."It would be disservice to contend the circular only prohibits hijab. Other community came with saffron shawl, that is also prohibited. This order does not prevent a particular community students to not wear a particular apparel. The order says uniform - (student) has to were uniform," he contended..The SG addressed the argument of the petitioner that wearing of a Hijab is an essential religious practice (ERP) in Islam. It was his submission that an ERP was only one that could be traced back to the origin of a religion itself or was so compelling that one could not fathom the religion without it. "No assertion shows that this started with the founding of the religion. The practice must be so compelling.. they could've said 90% people are doing, if I don't do this I'll be excommunicated," the SG submitted.It was also his stand that the Quran merely mentioning wearing the Hijab did not make it an ERP, but would simply mean that the practice is "permissible" or "ideal" at best."In case of Sikhs, Kara and Pagdi- you cannot think of Sikhs without it. Is it (Hijab) so compelling that people who do not adhere to are excommunicated or I cannot think of my existence without it?".The SG went on to emphasise that a uniform was to be worn simply as it itself, without any additions or substitutions."A dress cannot show religious identity when in secular education. If tomorrow Bar council prohibits tilak, then it will have to go. Unless we can show it is essential religious practice, which it is not." .He also rebutted the petitioner's argument that the government did not have the power to issue the order being challenged. "There is a statutory power to prescribe uniform by schools. There is a statutory power the government has to issue directions to school to ensure compliance with rules", he said. .On Solicitor General Tushar Mehta concluding his arguments, the Advocate General of Karnataka Prabhuling K Navadgi began his arguments and will continue tomorrow..Read more about Day 1 here.Read more about Day 2 here.Read more about Day 3 here.Read more about Day 4 here.Read more about Day 5 here.Read more about Day 6 here.Read more about Day 7 here..[Read our live-coverage from today's hearing]