Banning hijab is tantamount to banning the Quran, a petitioner-in-person argued before the Karnataka High Court in the hijab ban matter on Thursday..Dr Vinod Kulkarni told the Bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justices Krishna S Dixit and JM Khazi that the hijab issue is creating mass hysteria and is disturbing the mental health of the poor Muslim girls."Banning hijab tantamounts to banning Quran," Dr Kulkarni said."For you, hijab and Quran are same thing," Chief Justice Awasthi replied."Not for me. For entire world. I am a devout Brahmin Hindu. Quran applies to entire Muslim community across the world," was his response.At this point, Chief Justice Awasthi insisted that there was no ban on hijab..The Court was hearing a batch of petitions filed by Muslim girl students in the State claiming that they were not being allowed to enter colleges on account of the government order (GO) which effectively bans the wearing of hijab (headscarves)..Today, Advocate Rahamuthallah Kothwal began his submissions on behalf of a social activist. He cited Article 51(c) of the Constitution, which is a fundamental duty to foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organised peoples with one another. Referring to the Convention on Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), which was ratified by India in 1993, he said,"My submission is that the action of the State is not in consonance with the international conventions ratified by India."The Bench, however, pointed out that that the High Court's Rules on Public Interest Litigation were not complied with in the petition being argued."You are wasting time of the Court in such an important and serious matter, pagination not proper. You are wasting time which can otherwise be used by your friends," Justice Dixit said.When the Court threatened to dismiss the petition filed by Kothwal's client, he said,"I request Court not to get into technicalities. I will conclude my submissions in two to three minutes."However, the Court insisted,"You are testing our nerves. We will dismiss the petition with costs...This PIL has been filed without complying with the same. It is dismissed.".Dr Kulkarni was next to make submissions. He prayed for an order to allow the girl students to wear hijab on Fridays, which is auspicious day for Muslims, and during the coming month of Ramzan."It is disturbing the mental health of individuals, and the Koran cannot be ignored. Hijab is not against public order or health or morality," he added.Senior Advocate AM Dar then made submissions on behalf of another petitioner. He said,"This GO is cryptic in nature, unconstitutional and illegal. We don't need judgments from Tanzania or London...We have to analyse the GO in the light of parameters in of Constitution of India which is a sacred book."Once again, the Court pointed out that the PIL Rules were not complied with. Justice Dixit said,"Our Writ Petition Rules have adopted the rules of the Civil Procedure Code. You have not complied with these. Which institution are your petitioners studying, how have they been stopped from going to school?".Various counsel then sought time to argue before the Court. Advocate General Prabhuling Navadgi said he would make submissions on behalf of the State tomorrow. Senior Advocate Sajan Poovayya, appearing for the college development committees, said he would follow the AG's arguments.Advocate Subhash Jha sought to intervene in the matter, saying,"This is not the first time that courts in the country have been called to address the issue of hijab and growing of beard. Bombay and Kerala High Courts have addressed this and held this is not an integral part of Islam. There is an answer for all issues that have been raked up."However, CJ Awasthi made it clear that the Court was not permitting any intervenor to argue at the moment. "We will decide whether to allow intervenors after hearing petitioners and respondents," he said.On the suggestion of one advocate that the issue be resolved through mediation, the Court said,"Constitutional issues are involved. We need to answer it. Mediation cannot be done in this manner. It can be done only between consenting parties.".The matter will be heard again tomorrow, at 2:30 pm..On Wednesday, Senior Advocate Ravivarma Kumar, arguing for one of the petitioners, said that while religious symbols of other religions are not barred, Muslim girls were being singled out."If there are 100 symbols, why is the government picking on only hijab?...Bangles are worn. Why only pick on these poor Muslims girls?"While referring to Article 15 of the Constitution, which prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, Kumar argued,"Goonghat is permitted, bangles are permitted, Why not ban on crucifix of Christians. Why not turban of Sikhs?".[Hijab Ban] Bangles, crucifix, turban allowed; why only pick on Muslim girls? Petitioner to Karnataka High Court.The petitioners - Muslim girl students from various colleges in Karnataka - approached the High Court after they were denied permission to attend classes on account of wearing hijab. Among the grounds cited in the petition is that the freedom of conscience and the right to religion are both guaranteed by the Constitution, despite which the students were singled out arbitrarily for belonging to the Islamic faith.Further, the manner in which they were ousted created a stigma against them, affecting their mental health as well as their future prospects, it was submitted. It was also claimed that wearing of hijab was an essential part of Islam and enjoys protection under Article 25(1) of the Constitution, which confers the right to freely profess, practise and propagate religion..On February 10, the Court had passed an interim order barring students from wearing hijab, saffron shawls (bhagwa) or use any religious flags while attending classes in Karnataka colleges, till the matter is decided."It hardly needs to be mentioned that ours is a country of plural cultures, religions & languages. Being a secular State, it does not identify itself with any religion as its own. Every citizen has the right to profess & practise any faith of choice, is true. However, such a right not being absolute is susceptible to reasonable restrictions as provided by the Constitution of India," the Court noted.
Banning hijab is tantamount to banning the Quran, a petitioner-in-person argued before the Karnataka High Court in the hijab ban matter on Thursday..Dr Vinod Kulkarni told the Bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justices Krishna S Dixit and JM Khazi that the hijab issue is creating mass hysteria and is disturbing the mental health of the poor Muslim girls."Banning hijab tantamounts to banning Quran," Dr Kulkarni said."For you, hijab and Quran are same thing," Chief Justice Awasthi replied."Not for me. For entire world. I am a devout Brahmin Hindu. Quran applies to entire Muslim community across the world," was his response.At this point, Chief Justice Awasthi insisted that there was no ban on hijab..The Court was hearing a batch of petitions filed by Muslim girl students in the State claiming that they were not being allowed to enter colleges on account of the government order (GO) which effectively bans the wearing of hijab (headscarves)..Today, Advocate Rahamuthallah Kothwal began his submissions on behalf of a social activist. He cited Article 51(c) of the Constitution, which is a fundamental duty to foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organised peoples with one another. Referring to the Convention on Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), which was ratified by India in 1993, he said,"My submission is that the action of the State is not in consonance with the international conventions ratified by India."The Bench, however, pointed out that that the High Court's Rules on Public Interest Litigation were not complied with in the petition being argued."You are wasting time of the Court in such an important and serious matter, pagination not proper. You are wasting time which can otherwise be used by your friends," Justice Dixit said.When the Court threatened to dismiss the petition filed by Kothwal's client, he said,"I request Court not to get into technicalities. I will conclude my submissions in two to three minutes."However, the Court insisted,"You are testing our nerves. We will dismiss the petition with costs...This PIL has been filed without complying with the same. It is dismissed.".Dr Kulkarni was next to make submissions. He prayed for an order to allow the girl students to wear hijab on Fridays, which is auspicious day for Muslims, and during the coming month of Ramzan."It is disturbing the mental health of individuals, and the Koran cannot be ignored. Hijab is not against public order or health or morality," he added.Senior Advocate AM Dar then made submissions on behalf of another petitioner. He said,"This GO is cryptic in nature, unconstitutional and illegal. We don't need judgments from Tanzania or London...We have to analyse the GO in the light of parameters in of Constitution of India which is a sacred book."Once again, the Court pointed out that the PIL Rules were not complied with. Justice Dixit said,"Our Writ Petition Rules have adopted the rules of the Civil Procedure Code. You have not complied with these. Which institution are your petitioners studying, how have they been stopped from going to school?".Various counsel then sought time to argue before the Court. Advocate General Prabhuling Navadgi said he would make submissions on behalf of the State tomorrow. Senior Advocate Sajan Poovayya, appearing for the college development committees, said he would follow the AG's arguments.Advocate Subhash Jha sought to intervene in the matter, saying,"This is not the first time that courts in the country have been called to address the issue of hijab and growing of beard. Bombay and Kerala High Courts have addressed this and held this is not an integral part of Islam. There is an answer for all issues that have been raked up."However, CJ Awasthi made it clear that the Court was not permitting any intervenor to argue at the moment. "We will decide whether to allow intervenors after hearing petitioners and respondents," he said.On the suggestion of one advocate that the issue be resolved through mediation, the Court said,"Constitutional issues are involved. We need to answer it. Mediation cannot be done in this manner. It can be done only between consenting parties.".The matter will be heard again tomorrow, at 2:30 pm..On Wednesday, Senior Advocate Ravivarma Kumar, arguing for one of the petitioners, said that while religious symbols of other religions are not barred, Muslim girls were being singled out."If there are 100 symbols, why is the government picking on only hijab?...Bangles are worn. Why only pick on these poor Muslims girls?"While referring to Article 15 of the Constitution, which prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, Kumar argued,"Goonghat is permitted, bangles are permitted, Why not ban on crucifix of Christians. Why not turban of Sikhs?".[Hijab Ban] Bangles, crucifix, turban allowed; why only pick on Muslim girls? Petitioner to Karnataka High Court.The petitioners - Muslim girl students from various colleges in Karnataka - approached the High Court after they were denied permission to attend classes on account of wearing hijab. Among the grounds cited in the petition is that the freedom of conscience and the right to religion are both guaranteed by the Constitution, despite which the students were singled out arbitrarily for belonging to the Islamic faith.Further, the manner in which they were ousted created a stigma against them, affecting their mental health as well as their future prospects, it was submitted. It was also claimed that wearing of hijab was an essential part of Islam and enjoys protection under Article 25(1) of the Constitution, which confers the right to freely profess, practise and propagate religion..On February 10, the Court had passed an interim order barring students from wearing hijab, saffron shawls (bhagwa) or use any religious flags while attending classes in Karnataka colleges, till the matter is decided."It hardly needs to be mentioned that ours is a country of plural cultures, religions & languages. Being a secular State, it does not identify itself with any religion as its own. Every citizen has the right to profess & practise any faith of choice, is true. However, such a right not being absolute is susceptible to reasonable restrictions as provided by the Constitution of India," the Court noted.
