Express News Service
NEW DELHI: After an extensive hearing of 10 days, the Supreme Court bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia on Thursday reserved the verdict in pleas challenging Karnataka HC’s order upholding the ban on hijab in educational institutions.
Referring to a part of the circular which said that certain religious observances were causing problems in the campus and interfering with unity, Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave in his rejoinder submissions told the bench that the circular dated February 5, 2022, had no reference to the Popular Front of India.
He said that he “regrets” the allegation by the state that the controversy was provoked by a social media movement started by the PFI without any pleading and wasn’t mentioned in the HC.
Relying on the guidelines issued by the Department of Education in 2021-22, Dave noted that uniform was not compulsory. He also added that wearing of hijab in Islam for some people who were believers was essential and for those who were not believers was not essential.
Supporting Dave’s contention on the aspect of the involvement of PFI in fuming the controversy, Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi contended that the Government Order which restrained students to wear customary Islamic headscarves was illegal and sought to target a particular community.
“I can understand if the circular says no religious symbol is allowed. The circular speaks only of the head scarf. Even though it purports to be neutral it targets a particular community. Circular’s purport has to be read as a whole. It is strange that the State, which should be concerned about educating girls, is concerned more about discipline and is enforcing this which can lead to denying education to girls,” Ahmadi argued.
Stressing on the intent behind the development of the “essential religious practice test”, Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid for the students argued that the test was developed to balance the rights, to remove things which have grown on religion, so that religion does not suffer.
In response to the state’s contention that Muslim women in Turkey and France did cease to be Muslim if they weren’t wearing hijab, Khurshid said, “In France, you can’t even show a cross because in public places no religious symbol can’t be exhibited. The general proposition in France is that anything of religious belief is not to be displayed in public. In Mexico, for a long time, the President for a long time could not even go to the Church.”
Senior Advocate Devdat Kamat argued that the principal of the school could not decide on public order since it was a state subject. “At the first instance of some disturbance, you cannot raise an issue of public order. Public order has to be interpreted in a manner of the aid of fundamental rights,” he also added.
NEW DELHI: After an extensive hearing of 10 days, the Supreme Court bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia on Thursday reserved the verdict in pleas challenging Karnataka HC’s order upholding the ban on hijab in educational institutions.
Referring to a part of the circular which said that certain religious observances were causing problems in the campus and interfering with unity, Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave in his rejoinder submissions told the bench that the circular dated February 5, 2022, had no reference to the Popular Front of India.
He said that he “regrets” the allegation by the state that the controversy was provoked by a social media movement started by the PFI without any pleading and wasn’t mentioned in the HC.
Relying on the guidelines issued by the Department of Education in 2021-22, Dave noted that uniform was not compulsory. He also added that wearing of hijab in Islam for some people who were believers was essential and for those who were not believers was not essential.
Supporting Dave’s contention on the aspect of the involvement of PFI in fuming the controversy, Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi contended that the Government Order which restrained students to wear customary Islamic headscarves was illegal and sought to target a particular community.
“I can understand if the circular says no religious symbol is allowed. The circular speaks only of the head scarf. Even though it purports to be neutral it targets a particular community. Circular’s purport has to be read as a whole. It is strange that the State, which should be concerned about educating girls, is concerned more about discipline and is enforcing this which can lead to denying education to girls,” Ahmadi argued.
Stressing on the intent behind the development of the “essential religious practice test”, Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid for the students argued that the test was developed to balance the rights, to remove things which have grown on religion, so that religion does not suffer.
In response to the state’s contention that Muslim women in Turkey and France did cease to be Muslim if they weren’t wearing hijab, Khurshid said, “In France, you can’t even show a cross because in public places no religious symbol can’t be exhibited. The general proposition in France is that anything of religious belief is not to be displayed in public. In Mexico, for a long time, the President for a long time could not even go to the Church.”
Senior Advocate Devdat Kamat argued that the principal of the school could not decide on public order since it was a state subject. “At the first instance of some disturbance, you cannot raise an issue of public order. Public order has to be interpreted in a manner of the aid of fundamental rights,” he also added.
