3 years ago
The Karnataka High Court today resumed hearing in petitions filed by Muslim girls studying in government pre-university colleges in Udupi against the government ban on Hijabs in classrooms. The court had adjourned the hearing yesterday after state advocate general Prabhuling Navadgi sought time to respond to the petitions.
The arguments in the case come amid simmering tension in Karnataka where late last year, students were prevented from wearing the Muslim headscarf, sparking protests and counter demonstrations involving saffron scarves that have since spread to other states.
In an attempt to calm tensions, Karnataka's state government temporarily closed schools last week but have been opening gradually over the last two days. The Karnataka High Court has imposed a temporary ban on the wearing of all religious symbols in schools while it considers the headscarf ban.
Here are the LIVE updates on the Hijab Row:
Was Government Order Banning Hijab Premature? Court asks
Karnataka High Court: "Was government order banning hijab premature? On one hand you (State) say that high-level committee is examining the issue, while on the other hand you issue this order. Will this not amount to contradictory stand by State?"
Advocate General: "Certainly not".
Karnataka High Court: "Was government order banning hijab premature? On one hand you (State) say that high-level committee is examining the issue, while on the other hand you issue this order. Will this not amount to contradictory stand by State?"
Advocate General: "Certainly not".
Hijab Not Essential Practice Of Islam, Says Advocate General
The state government has taken the stand that the hijab does not come under the essential religious practices in Islam, says Advocate General.
The state government has taken the stand that the hijab does not come under the essential religious practices in Islam, says Advocate General.
Advocate General begins submissions for the state
- As I have understood, the controversy falls in three broad categories. Firstly, the order dated 05.02.2022. My first submission is that the order is in consonance with the Education Act.
- Second is the more substantive argument that hijab is an essential part. We have taken the stand that wearing of hijab does not fall within the essential religious practise of Islam.
- Wearing of Hijab does not fall within the essential religious practice of Islam.
- Third one is that this right to wear hijab can be traced to Article 19 (1) (a). Submission is that it does not do so.
- Practise of #Hijab must pass the test of Constitutional morality and individual dignity as expounded by the Supreme Court in the Sabrimala and Shayara Bano (Triple Talaq) cases. This is the positive proposition we are independently arguing.
Adv Mohan says petitions was filed due to urgency.
Bench gives time till Monday to produce the resolution.
CJ : First show the resolution of the society to permit you to file.
ADV Mohan : Monday I will produce.
CJ : No, we will not permit. You should've been careful. You're wasting the time of the Court. You say first time this question has come! Look at the way you have filed.
CJ : First show the resolution of the society to permit you to file.
Adv Mohan : Monday I will produce.
CJ : No, we will not permit. You should've been careful. You're wasting the time of the Court. You say first time this question has come! Look at the way you have filed.
Adv Mohan : The Chairman himself is filing this petition.
CJ : Is Chairman authorized? Show us the byelaw.
Adv Mohan : I will produce the authorization. We have filed several WPs earlier. This issue has never come up.
CJ : This is shocking, just because you have not been asked before.
Adv Mohan: Petitioner is an association of minority institutions protected by Article 29 and 30.
CJ : Is the petitioner a registered body?
Mohan : Yes.
CJ : Under Socieites Registration Act?
Adv Mohan : Yes.
CJ : Where is the resolution of society authorizing the filing?
Why I Decided To Resign, Karnataka Lecturer's Letter Amid Hijab Row Adv G R Mohan now appearing for Karnataka State Minorities Educational Insitutions Managements Federation.
CJ : There are other objections too. Rs 20 deficiency in stamp is the second objection. Third objection is PIL not accompanied with the affidavit in proforma. We will give you time to make good the office objections.
Bench allows the withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh petition.
Adv Kirti Singh now makes submissions in a PIL filed by a women's association and a Muslim woman.
Adv Singh: We had not filed a declaration as per the HC rule, now we have filed it and accordingly we may be heard.
Justice Dixit : Not even one anti-social element is made a party. No explanation is given for not making a party. How can this petition be entertained?
CJ : Better you file a proper petition. Make proper avernments. College is not made a party. What kind of a petition is this!
Ahmed seeks permission to amend the petition to add the college.
Justice Dixit : Where is the averment that the college is preventing. He says anti-social elements are preventing. None of them are made parties. College is not made a party.
CJ: If some anti-social elements are preventing you, then go a lodge FIR against them.
CJ: You are yourself saying there was no prevention or force to remove hijab, now some anti elements are forcing them to remove the hijab.
Lawyer : Even college authorities are not permitting.
CJ: What you have mentioned in the petition is not what you are saying
Ahmed mentions the Sabarimala judgment.
"I would like to bring one judgement to the notice of the court. Indian Young Lawyers Association Vs State of Kerala".
One lawyer mentions about the prevention of wearing hijab
Chief Justice to Kumar : Let the people understand what is the stand of the respondents also.
Bench now starts hearing a fresh petition. Adv Sirajuddin Ahmed makes submission on behalf of one petition.
Adv.Ravi Varma Kumar makes a request for discontinuing live-streaming.
"Live streaming is causing a lot of unrest as observations are understood out of context. Live streaming has become counterproductive and children are put to untoward unrest"
Sr Adv Ravivarma Kumar mentions the application filed seeking permission to wear dupattas of uniform colour. He says State has not filed objections.
AG says 2 days time was given and will be filed today.
Chief Justice: If Special Bench continues, we will hear on Monday.
CJ to Dar : If the proceedings complete get over today, we can't help it. But as it looks, the proceedings are likely to continue on Monday.
Kothwal now makes a mention claiming that his petiton(which was dismissed yesterday) was in compliance of Rules. He seeks review.
CJ: What we find is that there are 3 more fresh petitions today. We request that all these fresh petitions counsels may take only 10 min only so that we can hear respondents.
Karnataka High Court Begins hearing of Hijab Issue
Karnataka High Court bench assembles for hearing of Hijab Issue. Sr Adv AM Dar (whose petition was dismissed yesterday for defects) submits that a fresh petition has been filed after taking care of the objections. He requests for hearing it on Monday.
In an attempt to calm tensions, Karnataka's state government temporarily closed schools last week but have been opening gradually over the last two days. The Karnataka High Court has imposed a temporary ban on the wearing of all religious symbols in schools while it considers the headscarf ban.
The arguments in the case come amid simmering tension in Karnataka where late last year, students were prevented from wearing the Muslim headscarf, sparking protests and counter demonstrations involving saffron scarves that have since spread to other states.
The Karnataka High Court today resumed hearing in petitions filed by Muslim girls studying in government pre-university colleges in Udupi against the government ban on Hijabs in classrooms. The court had adjourned the hearing yesterday after state advocate general Prabhuling Navadgi sought time to respond to the petitions.
