Can the judiciary interpret the Quran? We may not be equipped says SC

New Delhi, Sep 16: Can the judiciary interpret the Quran? The Supreme Court has said that it may not be equipped to do so. The observations came during the hearing in the Karnataka hijab row, even as the petitioners demanded that the matter be referred to a Constitution Bench considering the seriousness of the matter.

We are not going to interpret the Quran. We may not be equipped to do so and this is what several lawyers have argued before us. The courts are not equipped to interpret, a Bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudanshu Dhulia observed when the issue of hijab being a religious tenet came up.

The Karnataka High Court had ruled that hijab is not essential religious practice, following which the Supreme Court was moved.

It was the petitioners who asked the question. Several writ petitions before the High Court were only on the ground that hijab is an essential religious practice. The difficulty arises when you raise an argument and then complain that the court ruled on it. Nobody stopped you from raising other grounds which you are now raising here, the Bench told the lawyers who argued against the High Court verdict of March 15.

The petitioners lawyers who included senior counsels, Kapil Sibal, Colin Gonsalves, Meenakshi Arora, Jayna Kothari, A M Dar and advocate Shoeb Alam argued that the judgment of the High Court focused only on the religious aspect of hijab. They argued that the HC had ignored that the prohibition was discriminating on the basis of religion and gender besides trampling upon identity, dignity and privacy of the girl students.

Hijab is a part of persona and identity for several girls and a student does not forego a fundamental right when she steps inside the school, Sibal argued while adding that the matter be referred to a larger Bench.

Alam told the court that privacy attaches to a person and not a place. The impact of the state government's order that mandated uniform is that I will give you education when you surrender your right to privacy, dignity and self-determination. This can never be sustained. The state has an affirmative obligation and duty to facilitate education, he also said.

Arora on the other hand said that the entire aim of education is to promote diversity and tolerance. He took the court through the verses in the Quran making an effort to rebut the reasoning by the HC that wearing of hijab is not mandatory but directory. If a turban is allowed in school why not a hijab, Gonsalves argued.