The Karnataka High Court has reserved its judgment in the petitions filed against the prohibition of wearing hijabs in educational institutions. The full Bench of the court, comprising of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice KS Dixit and Justice JM Khazi, heard the case for 11 days, considering submissions from advocates who debated at length on whether the hijab was an essential religious practice protected under Article 25 of the Constitution and whether the Government Order of February 25 was infringing upon any fundamental rights.
In its interim order on February 10, the court had prohibited the wearing of any items of religious clothing, including hijabs and saffron shawls, in educational institutions (including degree colleges) that have a prescribed uniform.
The court on Friday, February 25, heard rejoinder arguments from Advocates Yusuf Muchchala, Ravivarma Kumar, Vinod Kulkarni and Mohammed Tahir. Adv Kumar yet again was on the case of the College Development Committee and argued that assigning executive powers to a Member of the Legislative Assembly is a violation of the separation of powers prescribed by the Constitution. He said that the MLA had complete control to administer the college. "Giving control to the MLA is an anachronism. The MLA should be made accountable to somebody. This has been hijacked by the Govt circular. That is the crux of the matter," he argued.
The Bench also stated that it wasn't entirely convinced about the AG's submission on the circular that delegates authority to the CDC.
Advocate Kulkarni reiterated that the banning of the hijab was causing unrest in society and impacting the mental health of Muslim students. This, he said, was contrary to the intention of maintaining public order, as stated in the GO.
The court also dismissed a petition that was filed seeking action against media persons who were allegedly harassing Muslim students and teachers outside educational institutions and infringing upon their privacy by filming them taking off their burkhas and hijabs. The petitioner also argued that it was a violation of children's rights under the POCSO Act. The court advised the petitioner to file a formal complaint with the relevant commissions and under the appropriate legislation.
Advocate Tahir argued that imposing uniformity in a secular place will be a loss for the minority and added that it is possible that restrictions on the basis of secular institutions might be gradually extended.
