On Wednesday, the Karnataka government contested in the Supreme Court that the imposition of uniforms in schools and colleges might prevent the students from wearing religious attire including hijab in educational institutions but does not suffocate one’s right to freedom of religion or expression.
According to the reports, Advocate General Prabhuling K Navadgi appearing for the state argued that the hijab is not an essential practice in Islam and that students who intend to wear hijab can practice religion outside the schools. “Strict adherence to uniforms in schools promote an irreligious disciplined atmosphere conducive for education and promotes equality and unity”, he said.
This is after the Islamist side in the Court stated that the hijab fell under religious rights guaranteed under Article 25 and as a choice of dress also formed a part of the right to freedom of expression under Article 19.
Justice Gupta : Rights they are claiming under Part 3. They claim a primary right under Article 25, right under Article 19, ..and that the restrictions do not come under 19(2) and wearing of hijab is permissible.#hijab #SupremeCourtOfIndia
— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) September 21, 2022
Advocate Navadgi then referred to the earlier judgments given by the Supreme Court and said that till 1958 Islamists kept on claiming their right to cow slaughter on Eid was protected under Article 25 until it was rejected by the SC. “Since 1958, the SC has consistently ruled that all religious practices are not essential in character to get protected under Article 25, as is being sought by Muslim side for Hijab”, he said.
The advocate meanwhile also added that the government provides free uniforms to students studying in govt schools to create an irreligious atmosphere for learning. During the hearing, the bench led by Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia stated that the petitioners never stated that they would not wear uniforms. It was asked if this might be avoided if a youngster wore a muffler throughout the winter.
To this, the lawyer responded by saying that the regulation states that there cannot be a religious identity. Uniform is ‘uniform’, and one must wear it in a secular institution, he stated. The court also said that it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that wearing the hijab endangers public order, public health, or morals.
Additional solicitor general K M Natraj further headed the Karnataka government’s argument and said that mixing religious rights and the right to freedom of expression would result in serious complications. “In the guise of religious rights, can a Muslim offer Namaz or Hindu perform Havan in the Court”, he asked rhetorically. The teachers of the Udupi educational institutions also established their point in the Court and said that the atmosphere of the educational institutions should not be disturbed by students exhibiting their unique religious identity.
Naidu : Ask any conditioned mind, they will say God. But ask a mind with scientific temper, they will think there is a reason…
— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) September 21, 2022
Justice Dhulia : What is your point?
Naidu : As a teacher, I want minds which are not conditioned.
“Let them have religion in their hearts and not wear it up on their sleeves”, Senior advocate D Sheshadri Naidu appearing for one of the Udupi teachers stated on September 21. The Karnataka High Court, according to the court, should not have gone into the essential religious practice test. The court will continue to consider the case stemming from the Karnataka High Court’s March 15 decision maintaining the hijab prohibition.
