BENGALURU: The order issued by the State Government, prescribing uniform in schools and colleges, is totally erroneous and illegal, as it says that a ban on wearing the hijab is not a violation of Article 25 and, at the same time, leaves the decision on the hijab to the discretion of the College Development Committee (CDC) headed by an MLA.
This is a mockery of the fundamental right to freedom, senior advocate Devadatt Kamat, representing a group of students from Udupi, argued before the Karnataka High Court on Monday.
Continuing his arguments against the Government Order of February 5, before the full bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justices Krishna S Dixit and J M Khazi, which is hearing pleas on the hijab row, Kamat argued that the order was issued under the Karnataka Education Act without application of mind as it says that a ban on wearing the hijab is not a violation of Article 25.
He argued that the students used to wear a headscarf to college for the last two years. This is not a case where the students are insisting on different uniforms.
They are saying that they only cover their heads with a scarf of the same colour as the prescribed uniform.
The state should facilitate this, he pleaded while pointing out that the respective governments have permitted students to wear a headscarf matching the uniform colours in Kendriya Vidyalayas.
Kamat also pointed out that the order doesn’t apply to private minority institutions but only to government institutions.
The judgments cited by the State Government in the order have nothing to do with Article 25. Wearing a headscarf does not disturb anybody or create any hindrance.
The state is duty-bound to ensure freedom of conscience, he argued.
He contended that the essential religious practice should not be left to the CDC which, he arugued, is an extra legal committee as there is no sanction in law.
Request to defer hearing
Two interlocutory applications were mentioned before the court by senior advocate Prof Ravi Varma Kumar.
One seeks clarification on the interim order of February 11 while a second one is for deferring the hearing of these petitions till the last phase of elections are over in Uttar Pradesh and other states.
The counsel submitted that wide publicity of the case, more so in the social media, will have an adverse effect on polls. However, the CJ said the applications have not been listed.
“Every day, we are requesting the media and social media platforms. How can the election be affected by these proceedings? If this request is made by the Election Commission or some authority which is holding elections, then we can consider at an appropriate time”, the CJ said before adjourning further hearing to Tuesday.
CJ’s request to media
Before resuming the hearing, the full bench headed by the CJ said, “We may make an earnest request to the media that they should be more responsible. Let us make efforts to bring peace and tranquillity in the state and let us all be more responsible citizens. We are not saying anything against the media and we are not on that issue also. We are live-streaming the proceedings and request the media to see to its responsibility, which is the fourth pillar of democracy”.