Educational institution

Educational institution is not a place to profess, preach a particular religion, claims Karnataka AG

Photo: iStock

New Delhi: The Supreme Court resumed hearing in the Karnataka hijab case on Wednesday. The petitions of Muslim female students as well as others have challenged the Karnataka High Court order upholding the ban on the wearing of hijab by Muslim female students in educational institutions in Karnataka.
On Tuesday, Senior Counsel Dushyant Dave appearing for the petitioners argued that the hijab makes women look dignified. Dave also said that girls wearing hijab in school do not violate anyone’s peace and safety and there is certainly no danger to the peace. And, there is only one aspect of law and order, which could be challenged, he added.

“The hijab is a symbol of dignity. Makes a Muslim woman look dignified, just like a Hindu woman she looks dignified when she covers her head with a sari,” Dave argued before the Supreme Court.

Here are the latest updates from the Supreme Court hearing

1:30 p.m.: GA: THere are reasonable restrictions on free speech inside a school. There, the uniform rule will prevail. No right is absolute.

1:28 p.m.: Judge Dhulia: Your (AG’s) argument is that there is no restriction on Hijab, if she wears a hijab outside or in a mall, she is exercising her right to self-expression. But does she lose this right when she reaches the school gate?

12:30 p.m.: GA: The right to wear a dress as part of the expression cannot be easily granted just by asking. We have not banned the hijab outdoors, there are no restrictions on wearing on school transport. There are no restrictions even in the school campus and the nature of the restriction is only inside the classroom.

“It was not, I don’t want to import personal knowledge but as a citizen I witnessed. It was not the case of a single student but it was a group of students loudly hitting the school door. It had a ripple effect. It was in Udupi & then in Kundapura. We had children who were not going to class. The concept of PO is very pleasant for them today. The reality on the ground was something else. It never happened in Karnataka. There were groups that actively associated themselves. The state has to be looked at from that perspective as well,” AG said in court.

11:50 a.m.: AG refers to the case Mohd Hanifa Qureshi who held the slaughter of cows in Bakrid is not an essential practice.

Just because something is mentioned in the Quran, it may not be essential.

11:448 a.m.: GA: We are not Quran experts, but this Court ruled that every word of the Quran may be religious but not essential – refers to the Qureshi judgment on the slaughter of cows.

11:47 a.m.: Judge Gupta: What is their argument is that everything said in the Quran is the word of God and is obligatory?

11:45 am: Karnataka GA: Assuming that wearing the hijab is a religious practice, it is possible, as commanded in the Quran, that any mundane activity related to religion cannot be an essential religious practice.

11:40 am: Prabhuling Navadgi, General Counsel of Karnataka: In Shayara Bano, the SC established that there are many religious groups that practice various forms of worship or practice religions, rituals, rites, etc. It would therefore be difficult to conceive of a definition of religion that would be considered applicable to all. religions or matters of religious practice.

In Ismail Faruqui Vs UOI, the SC Constitution Bench held that protection under Articles 25 and 26 relates to religious practice which is an integral and essential part of religion. A practice may be a religious practice but not an essential and integral part of the practice of that religion. Only Essential Religious Practice (ERP) is constitutionally protected.

Educational institutions are not a place to profess, preach a particular religion or caste. And on the contrary, students must maintain the uniform. For this noble purpose, students are required to wear the uniform and cloth prescribed by the institution or authority concerned.