New Delhi: Karnataka's Hijab row played out for the fourth day in the High Court on Wednesday, with the Chief Justice hearing arguments from Muslim girls who have challenged restrictions on wearing the religious headscarves in classrooms.
Arguing on behalf of petitioners, advocate Ravi Varma Kumar asked the judges why the Hijab was being singled out when there were "hundreds of religious symbols from dupattas, bangles, turbans, crosses and bindis" worn by people every day.
Even as the Karnataka High Court hears arguments on allowing religious clothing in educational institutions, another government college in the state has turned into a site of protest for sending away students who insisted on wearing the hijab (headscarf) in classrooms. The Government PU college at Vijayapura in north Karnataka, which allowed hijabs earlier, did not allow students wearing hijabs to enter the classrooms today. The college administration argued that they were only following interim orders of the court, which had allowed schools and colleges to resume only on the condition that no religious clothing be allowed in classrooms. The students, however, say the college did not inform them that they would not be allowed in hijabs or burkhas.
Dramatic visuals from the college show some students who had entered the classroom in hijabs and burkhas arguing with the teacher and the Principal of the school requesting them to follow the court order.
"We are in accordance with the High Court's order that says no religious garment, whether hijab or saffron shawls, will be allowed inside educational institutions," the Principal can be heard saying.
After a squabble, a separate space inside the college was allotted to these students to take off their hijabs and burkhas, and enter the classrooms.
The Principal had stopped these students at the entrance of the college but they forced their way in and protested against being denied entry.
After they were asked to leave, the students protested by raising slogans of "we want justice" and expressing their anguish to the media present at the spot.
Some women police personnel could also be seen at the spot in the videos from the college.
On February 14, students at some Karnataka schools were directed to remove their hijabs before entering the campus, in accordance with an interim High Court order that said educational institutions could re-open (after having been shut last week) but no religious clothing would be allowed.
Videos of women being asked to remove their religious clothing in the open had caused a massive outcry on social media with many calling it a "humiliating" experience.
Controversy over Muslim students barred from wearing the hijab began in December after six girls from Karnataka's Udupi district voiced their concerns. They then approached the High Court.
Since then it has snowballed into a significant matter, with the Supreme Court also approached.
However, Chief Justice of India NV Ramana said: "We will interfere only at an appropriate time."
Protests have escalated rapidly over the past few weeks; last week a young student in Mandya was heckled by saffron-waving male aggressors shouting 'Jai Shri Ram'.
Separately there were also incidents of stone-throwing and police firing teargas to break up crowds.
Here are the Live updates on Hijab Row:
Feb 16, 2022 17:33 (IST)
Bench rises. Hearing to continue tomorrow at 2.30 PM.
Feb 16, 2022 17:33 (IST)
Sr Adv Adish Agarwala mentions one intervention application opposing the petitions.
CJ says no interventions are being permitted.
Feb 16, 2022 17:33 (IST)
Advocate General seeks 2 days time to file objections to the IA seeking clarification. Bench grants.
Feb 16, 2022 17:32 (IST)
Kumar : Seeking a clarification..just to use the same duppata to cover their head. Let the students get back to the class.
Feb 16, 2022 17:32 (IST)
Sr Advocate Professor Ravivarma Kumar: A proper application is made seeking clarification of the interim order. Yesterday due to some technical reason it was not considered.
Feb 16, 2022 17:32 (IST)
CJ: We are left with WP no 3148. That is a PIL. Also 3422 that is also a PIL. Only two writ petitions left to be heard.
Feb 16, 2022 17:32 (IST)
CJ : We do not know whether you are making arguments for interim or final stage. We have not disposed of any interim applications. Let that be clear. We have passed only interim order.
Feb 16, 2022 17:32 (IST)
Muchhala concludes arguments.
Muchhala: I belive these arguments are at the interim stage and not final stage. There is some confusion in my mind. Please forgive me for asking this.
CJ : You people have started arguing and we have started hearing.
Feb 16, 2022 17:32 (IST)
Muchhala: What is the constituional right that is infringed, Article 25, my right to conscience and my right to have an education. Thus the action is totally disproportionate.
Feb 16, 2022 17:32 (IST)
Mucchala on the second test of proportionality regarding less restrictive measures : Assuming they want a universal uniform, why not consult persons whose rights are affected?
Feb 16, 2022 17:32 (IST)
Mucchala on the second test of proportionality regarding less restrictive measures : Assuming they want a universal uniform, why not consult persons whose rights are affected?
Feb 16, 2022 17:32 (IST)
Muchhala: First this, this impugned action is not advancing the purpose of the (Education) Act. Harmony is the real purpose of the act and measure taken by them goes against harmony and the fundamental duties.
Feb 16, 2022 17:32 (IST)
CJ : Finish your arguments today, so that we may hear the other side.
Muchhala continues. He refers to Modern Dental College case (2016) 7 SCC 353.
Feb 16, 2022 17:31 (IST)
CJ : That you elaborate in written submissions.
Mucchala : Give me 10 mins more.
CJ : We have already noted. If you want to elaborate, give it in writing.
Mucchala : Give me 10 mins tomorrow. I will not take more than that.
Feb 16, 2022 17:31 (IST)
Muchhala: Constitution takes into account the diversity that exists in the country.
CJ : Alright Mr. Yusuf, we have understood what you are saying. You will be able to finish today. Any other point to elaborate?
Mucchala seeks some time tomorrow to argue on proprotionality.
Feb 16, 2022 17:31 (IST)
Muchhala: The purpose of the Education Act is to promote harmony and not to create dissent among students. Why govt should come out with such impugned legislation? Are we promoting common brotherhood with this?
Feb 16, 2022 17:31 (IST)
Mucchala : The object they have launched is opposed to the fundamental duty of the citizens as well, as it goes against the promotion of communal harmony.
Feb 16, 2022 16:33 (IST)
CJ: We have understood, that it is not necessary that it should be an Essential Religious Practice to attract Article 25.
Mucchala : The belief has to be protected.
Feb 16, 2022 16:33 (IST)
Mucchala : Conscience is a very wide term. There are people who do not believe in God but believe in conscience. There are some who believe in the universality of all religions.
Feb 16, 2022 16:26 (IST)
Mucchala : When the right is claimed under A 25(1) and 19(1)(a), what matters is the entertainment of a conscientious belief by individual. When right is claimed as a matter of conscience, it is not necessary to delve into the question whether it is an integral part of religion.