Karnataka Hijab case High Court hearing today: Highlights in 10 points

New Delhi, Feb 16: On the fourth day of hearing in Karnataka High Court over Hijab row, the advocate appearing for Muslim girls, asked the judges why one community is being singled out when people from other communities are wearing "religious symbols like dupattas, bangles, turbans, crosses and bindis" every day.

Here is the story in 10 points:

Senior Advocate Ravivarma Kumar, appearing for the petitioners challenging the ban on hijab, submitted before Karnataka High Court that discrimination against Muslim girls is purely based on religion.

A bench of the three judges, comprising Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice JM Khazi, was hearing various petitions challenging the ban on hijab in educational institutes in the state on Tuesday.

Mentioning that Hindu girls wearing bangles and Christian girls wearing cross are not sent out, the senior advocate asked why the government was picking on hijab alone. Kumar submitted that no other religious symbol was considered in the impugned government order.

"Why only hijab? Is it not because of their religion?" he questioned and further added that discrimination against Muslim girls is purely based on religion.

Advocate Kumar said that the state education Act said that when an educational institution intends to change uniform, it has to issue notice one year in advance to parents. He argued that if there is a ban on hijab then it should have been informed one year in advance. He also said that there are no provisions under the Karnataka Education Act nor rules of a ban on wearing a hijab.

The Court remarked that there are no provisions for carrying the Kirpan or anything which is objectionable to the classroom. The Court said that because these are not mentioned in the Act need not mean it might be permitted.

The Court further said that it is also true that it does not say hijab should be permitted or not permitted but it has to be independently argued.

Advocate Kumar said that there is no prohibition against Hijab and the question arises that under what authority or rules students have been kept out of the class. He further added that an MLA will be representing a political party or a political ideology and can students welfare be entrusted to a political party or a political ideology?

Kumar added that the constitution of a committee of this nature gives a death blow to our democracy. Meanwhile appearing for another petitioner, senior Advocate Yusuf Muchhala argued that the purpose of the Education Act is not to create dissent among students.

The Karnataka High Court will continue hearing on Thursday various petitions challenging the ban on headscarves in educational institutes. PTI