NEW DELHI: Relying on the contents of a report by the People’s Union for Civil Liberties which dealt with the impact of Karnataka HC’s verdict, senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi for the Muslim students in the Karnataka hijab ban case on Wednesday told the bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia that the ban had resulted in thousands (17,000) of students abstaining from taking examinations.
Questioning the authenticity of the report, the bench said, "We don’t want to say anything about reports. We didn’t accept. The issue of the dropout rate was never raised before the HC. You are arguing for the first time here."
Ahmadi also argued that Muslim girls, who were confined to madrasas earlier had broken stereotypes by joining secular education with the hijab but the government order (GO) which restrained students to wear the hijab, or customary Islamic headscarf to educational institutions took that away from them.
Taking exceptions to his submissions, the bench said, "There is no foundation of that in the writ petition read by Mr Mucchala that you are going to madrasas, which it’s not the case set up. The HC has not discussed it."
The GO said it was to develop fraternity, but it is the antithesis of fraternity, Ahmadi argued. Stressing on the objective of the Karnataka Education Act which promotes unity in diversity, he said that the circular was the objective of the Act. “If somebody is getting proved by hijab, he should have a sense of brotherhood and fraternity,” Ahmadi added. Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan for a 17-year-old girl said that the GO targeted Muslim women without any sensitivity and that it was contrary to law and the Constitution.
“This is not a yes-no issue. This is not an issue where you say we have a disciplinary code and you follow it. What are the obligations of the authority concerned to bring about a measure of inclusiveness and to apply the least restrictive approach. The GO is against the hijab. It targets Muslims and Muslim women particularly. Violates article 14 & 15 and this Targeting without any sensitivity is contrary to law and the constitution,” Dhavan submitted.